Craig Crawford: "[T]he evidence-free bias against the Clintons in the media borders on mental illness"
SUMMARY: On Morning Joe, Craig Crawford stated: "I really think the evidence-free bias against the Clintons in the media borders on mental illness." Crawford went on to assert, "I mean, we've gotten into a situation where if you try to be fair to the Clintons, if you try to be objective, if you try to say, 'Well, where's the evidence of racism in the Clinton campaign?' you're accused of being a naïve shill for the Clintons." He later added: "I really think it's a problem."
During the January 26 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Congressional Quarterly columnist Craig Crawford responded to host Joe Scarborough's assertion that former President Bill Clinton is "divisive" by stating, "I really think the evidence-free bias against the Clintons in the media borders on mental illness." Crawford went on to state, "I mean, we've gotten into a situation where if you try to be fair to the Clintons, if you try to be objective, if you try to say, 'Well, where's the evidence of racism in the Clinton campaign?' you're accused of being a naïve shill for the Clintons." He later added: "I really think it's a problem."
Crawford's statement came after co-host Mika Brzezinski aired a video clip in which Clinton said: "[T]hey have systematically polarized the country, the right-wing Republican faction has. They first took over the Republican Party. And then they performed reverse plastic surgery on all the Democrats, right? ... And it worked for them every single time, except with me." After the clip of Clinton's remark, Scarborough asserted that "it's amazing how divisive he is compared to [Democratic presidential candidate] Barack Obama, who asks Republicans and independents to vote for him. And here's Bill Clinton fighting the right-wing Republicans. It's just like 1998 all over again, isn't it?" Crawford then stated:
CRAWFORD: You know, I have sat down here in Florida for the last month. And I have watched the coverage, and I really think the evidence-free bias against the Clintons in the media borders on mental illness. I mean, I think when Dr. Phil gets done with Britney [Spears], he ought to go to Washington and stage an intervention at the National Press Club. I mean, we've gotten into a situation where if you try to be fair to the Clintons, if you try to be objective, if you try to say, "Well, where's the evidence of racism in the Clinton campaign?" you're accused of being a naïve shill for the Clintons. I mean, I think if somebody came out today and said that Bill Clinton -- if the town drunk in Columbia [South Carolina] came out and said, "Bill Clinton last night was poisoning the drinking water in Obama precincts," the media would say, "Ah, there goes Clinton again. You can't trust him." I really think it's a problem. You know what? You guys make him stronger with this bashing. This actually is what makes the Clintons stronger.
Crawford previously stated on the January 19 edition of Morning Joe that "many of us in the media tend to gang up on the Clintons."
From the January 26 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
BRZEZINSKI: Well, [Mike] Barnicle and then Craig, we want you to chime in. Here's Bill Clinton on the campaign trail yesterday talking about whether or not his wife is a polarizing figure, and the word "race" does come up as well. Take a listen.
CLINTON [video clip]: The only people that she's a polarizing figure around are people that don't know her. I mean, the reason I think she's the most electable Democrat has nothing to do with race or gender. It is that they have systematically polarized the country, the right-wing Republican faction has. They first took over the Republican Party. And then they performed reverse plastic surgery on all the Democrats, right? Starting with President Carter in 1980 -- really, starting in the late '70s. And it worked for them every single time, except with me.
BRZEZINSKI: Wow.
SCARBOROUGH: You know the thing is -- and Craig Crawford, race aside, it's amazing how divisive he is compared to Barack Obama, who asks Republicans and independents to vote for him. And here's Bill Clinton fighting the right-wing Republicans. It's just like 1998 all over again, isn't it?
CRAWFORD: You know, I have sat down here in Florida for the last month. And I have watched the coverage, and I really think the evidence-free bias against the Clintons in the media borders on mental illness. I mean, I think when Dr. Phil gets done with Britney, he ought to go to Washington and stage an intervention at the National Press Club. I mean, we've gotten into a situation where if you try to be fair to the Clintons, if you try to be objective, if you try to say, "Well, where's the evidence of racism in the Clinton campaign?" you're accused of being a naïve shill for the Clintons. I mean, I think if somebody came out today and said that Bill Clinton -- if the town drunk in Columbia came out and said, "Bill Clinton last night was poisoning the drinking water in Obama precincts," the media would say, "Ah, there goes Clinton again. You can't trust him." I really think it's a problem. You know what? You guys make him stronger with this bashing. This actually is what makes the Clintons stronger.
There's no better example of this than tonight's S.C results. Based solely upon wacky exit polls only, they were practically calling for Hillary to drop out of the race.
I love how they claimed-- with no evidence-- that she would lose to Edwards (!)
And just WHAT did Bill Clinton do that was wrong, besides criticize reporters for their stupidity?
All day we've been hearing how he "crossed the line," and how even his "friends" are upset with him-- but no evidence is ever given for these claims!!
The "EVIDENCE" that is given is bogus "interpretations" of statements made with all context removed, to where the actual OBJECT of a statement is arbitrarily CHANGED by the Media.
I'd like to say I've never seen anything like it, but this is the Media that spread far and wide that Al Gore claimed to have "invented" the internet. They have the tactic honed by now, and so their LYING and MISINFORMATION is flowing easily and constantly now. Hell, they've gotten away with it SO FAR, and affected elections with their bogus "Swift Boat" comments, so why should they CHANGE?
"illness" Indeed!
Well said Craig! Too bad you're just one against the many.
A perfect example of what Crawford described spewed forth earlier today on Morning Jo(k)e's Hill/Bill hate fest.
Joe was building strawmen and slinging mud faster than his crew could cut the wire on the bales and mix dirt and water.
It was really sickening.
Bill Clinton had a joke about this ten years ago. Someone asked him what would happen if he were assasinated by some nutcase on a trip somewhere down in say, Texas.
Clinton replied, "Oh, you know what would happen, don't you? They'd just blame ME for going down there in the first place!"
Here's what Obama's "coming together" and "unity" is all about:
http://www.failuremag.com/images/Cartoon_Conrad.jpg
The media is going out of their way to create a political and social disaster for this country.
Let me explain the cartoon to you.
It's Paul Conrad showing us what happens when you claim that you're going to work with Republicans in a non-partisan fashion-- just like Obama said he would tonight in his speech.
You're gonna get screwed...!
The point that Crawford is making, which should be made, is that the media establishment is insane, and not only on the subject of the Clintons. The free press has always included a lot of bs'ers, but today the bs is stacked a mile deep. Politicians who are able to establish bonds that go beyond their press are what we need, and we also need a press that is able to recognize the truth. Right now, I don't think that's true, and the Clinton-bashing is only part of it.
Now Hillary is not inevitable, she's weak; she's relying on her "hubby," and they're using racist tactics. No evidence, or worse, invented evidence, for all of this.
Right !! They just cannot admit that she might have a legitimate win. She's ahead in the national polls, so why are they so surprised when she wins primaries ?
I can't figure out if they are just so accustomed to, and reliant on, Hillary bashing, or if they are attempting to install a Republican president via divide and conquer tactics against the Dems ... if they can start a race or gender war between the two candidates, then the candidates' supporters will so hate the other candidate they'll vote 3rd party or Republican rather than see their fellow Democrat "enemy" win the race. I almost got caught up in this myself ! I won't be a patsy. If Hilary doesn't win the nomination, I WILL vote for Obama.
You do the math...
Atheist, it's your second suspicion.
Hillary Slime = Obama Win = McCain Win.
Obama might win in an enlightened country.
We're not there yet.
I think the Hillary supporters are not as rabid as the Obama supporters. This may have something to do with age, if Hillary truly does have the older voters behind her, older tends to be more mellow, less knee-jerk, and more focused on big picture. I'm 47, I'm just growing up now. :-)
Anyway, I think it would be more likely that the Hillary supporters wouldn't seek revenge on Obama if he wins the nomination, so they will vote for him. Unfortunately I think exactly the opposite will happen if Hillary wins, the pissy Obama supporters will seek revenge ... and install another Republican president.
There are principles a vote for Clinton requires some to compromize on. Those principles represent, for some, a bigger picture than who's president in a year. Or who's on the Supreme Court in four years.
Call it revenge if you want, but I will never vote for Hillary Clinton. And there are more of me than there are of you.
all i can think of is the old saying, cut off your nose to spite your face. let's have another 4 to 8 years of ignoring global warming, huge deficits?
Demagogy is sort of unimpressive. One quote I liked this week:
"Hillary Clinton will say anything and change nothing."
I'm far from any way the wind blows. In fact, when I say that there are good points to be made on both sides of the spectrum, my point isn't that everybody's right. On the contrary, it's that everybody's wrong--at least in part. And the problem is that everybody thinks they're right all of the time. This means anybody who opposes them is wrong all of the time. The reason they're wrong is simple: they're bad. They're racists. They're sexists. They're homophobes. They're religous zealots. They're liberals. They're communists. They're traders. They're terrorist sympathizers. They're just plain bad.
Now, while I agree that antagonism has it's place in politics, this is not antagonism, it's demagogy (have I used that word too many times?), and while that's a hell of a fundraising tool, it doesn't make for a healthy democracy.
If you're not ready to deny any and all points that make you question your own perspective, you're accused of shilling for the other side. You're accused of lacking principles. When quite the opposite is true.
Yeah, I don't think I'll vote for McCain. But I do think he's shown greater strength of character during most of his life than Hillary Clinton. But no, I don't think I will vote for him. In the end, it would be a protest vote.
Still, I think you and I probably have differing definitions for what it means to be liberal. Personally, I like to follow the dictionary definition.
Again, I have serious doubts with regard to whether I will vote for McCain. I will not vote for him over Obama. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton, so yeah, the option is greater that I vote for him if she's nominated.
With regard to the war, yes, all of the Republicans (save Ron Paul) have absurd positions on the war. Of course, it deserves mentioning, that Hillary Clinton's position on the war a year or two ago was more similar to John McCain's than it was mine (both of them argued not that the war was wrong, but that it was wrongly managed). But yeah, I watched the debate in Florida, and I thought it was A: Boring and B: Ridiculous.
Still, I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. Will I consider a Republican? Perhaps. I live in New York, though, so it won't really matter.
As to whether you're interested in definitions or not, you should be. Words have meanings. If you're going to use the words, you should know what they mean.
BREAKERBAKER:
Some in here will challenge your criteria for disliking Hillary.
I will not do so, because you've made it clear your decision is highly personal and emotional. Nobody can make you like her, any more than anyone can convince you that the continuation of Republicans in power would be a bad thing for the nation. After all, you've "lived through" Republicans, and it's no big deal to you. (a great many have NOT "lived through" Bush's policies, but that's not an argument you would consider ... it's not something that hits you in the gut.) But you won't vote for a "carpetbagger". Such criteria cannot be argued; you have made clear how you set PRIORITIES.
Those of us who think it IS important to America WHO is running things, will just have to out-vote you.
Then you are a fool ... and your decision could change the course of this country for the next 40 years -- depending on who a Republican president places on the Supreme Court.
BAC
Athiest said:
if Hillary wins, the pissy Obama supporters will seek revenge ... and install another Republican president.
Not likely!! Not that many Obama supporters are "pissy". They are idealist who dream of a better time and real change and don't believe HRC will give them that. I can't expect these idealist to sacrifice their hopes by staying home or actually electing a republican. These are the demented dreams of a republican concern troll.
All Obama supporters who will vote for Mccain instead of HRC raise your hand. Not all at once now.
Exactly:
New Hampshire= Voter Fraud, Tears, Racist White Voters
Nevada= Bill Clinton's attacks, Labor Union Strong-Arming
Beating McCain, etc in National Polls= not getting Independents Polarizing.
As far as the media is concerned, Hillary hasn't won yet, and Giuliani hasn't lost yet.
Atheist-- you're always so right, keep it up.
The MSM wants Obama for two reasons: it's the sexier race, and they (and their bosses) know he will lose badly to McCain.
They are COMMITTED to a Republican victory in November. Anything else would be bad for business.
It's all in the cards-- the Plutocrats are picking our candidates for us.
Friday, January 25, 2008
The latest Rasmussen Reports
It’s Clinton 47% McCain 45%.
Obama’s advantage over McCain is slightly larger than Clinton’s. It’s Obama 46% McCain 41%
That's right now.
Just wait until the media starts trumpeting the need for "experience." And that doesn't count people who are looking for a reason to vote against a Black guy-- which they will have provided for them by November.
So true. Obama supporters are more than naive about this-- they're dumb dumb dumb
Man, calling someone who doesn't agree with you dumb. Way to engage in rational discussions. I won't call people who CHOOSE to support Hillary dumb, that's simply their choice and I don't agree. Unfortunately what's naive is thinking that the Republican machine won't eat Hillary & Bill for a snack, they already have. What's even more naive is Bill & Hillary thinking that they can say anything and do anything and folks won't notice, they do. What's naive is Bill & Hillary thinking that they can cross a line and people will vote because they have no choice.
What's really naive is thinking that being nasty, rude and obnoxious to fellow Democrats will somehow help your cause, it will not.
What EXACTLY have Bill and Hillary done? Specifics?
It's all anti-Clinton propaganda you're spouting. The Right has been pounding the Clintons for years and-- guess what-- they've LOST every time.
You think they're gonna give Obama a free ride?
Go ahead, vote for him-- but don't complain when he gets CREAMED in November because the media suddenly decides that "experience" is the theme.
So true. Obama supporters are more than naive about this-- they're dumb dumb dumb.
Oh and for a 'dumb' Obama I like the company I keep. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Obama supporters are dumb not to realize what's going to happen in November if he wins the nomination.
He hasn't a chance against McCain. It will be a debacle. All the self-righteousness and piousness in the world is not going to protect us from the onslaught. You guys are very naive.
Go ahead, vote your way-- the same way many of you supported Nader in 2000.
Yeah, and you can vote for the "safe" candidate with no inspiration and little appeal to the indy voters, and then blame Obama supporters when she loses in November instead of staring down your condescending elitism in the mirror. Clinton will be the next Kerry.
One problem McCain doesn't have-- lack of experience. And he's not Black.
By November, the media will give many people good reason not to pull the lever for Obama-- just what some will be looking for.
Jeez, I simply cannot believe the naivete of many Democrats. That's why we lose.
And just what specifics has Obama given that causes all the excitement? It's all really pretty scary, this mindlessness about "change" (like a woman isn't change) or this big-lie about the Clinton years, or this rank mob appeal of a political amateur with the most hackneyed speeches since Ross Perot.
One problem McCain doesn't have-- lack of experience. And he's not Black.
By November, the media will give many people good reason not to pull the lever for Obama-- just what some will be looking for.
Jeez, I simply cannot believe the naivete of many Democrats. That's why we lose.
And just what specifics has Obama given that causes all the excitement? It's all really pretty scary, this mindlessness about "change" (like a woman isn't change) or this big-lie about the Clinton years, or this rank mob appeal of a political amateur with the most hackneyed speeches since Ross Perot.
LOL
You state that Obama being black is the reason he will lose and lose big?
Hillary is THE MOST hated woman by at least half of the country and somehow there going to turn in in record numbers and votes FOR her?. Yeah and you call Obama naive? LOL
Watched it this morning on MSNBC....I have to say Craig was and is right on...To see Mike Barnicle's jaw drop was priceless to say the least...These left wing Obama loons spew whatever they want to and when Craig speaks the truth, he gets hammered by the extreme left(Barnicle) and right (Scarborough)....
MSNBC is as a safe haven for Obama as Pakistan is for Osama...Lets tell it like it is...Also there are even less pro-Clintons in the media now because CNN has barred Carville/Begala till the primaries are over...
Chris Matthews is a bigger anti-Hillary than a pro-Obama supporter, but, when he's not around there are PLENTY of so-called 'Pundits' to pick up his slack on that skewed cable network...Having said all that, I'm not even voting for the Clintons...
I'm voting in the Republican primary...I've seen the press skewer many from my party and raise incompetents to an all time high..For example, McCain - was against the tax cuts before he was for them, was for amnesty before he was against it....Passed McCain-Feingold - putting limits on contributions - thats why people like Forbes and Romney have to spend their own money. Bloomberg will have to do the same if he joins the fray, as Corzine did in NJ....But, our pal, Tim Russert has some disdain for people like Romney as evidenced in the last debate...Romney worked, earned, inversted and saved his money which added to a nice fortune. Just because he has funds to run a campaign, Russert mercilessly went after Governor Romney...Asking repeatedly, 'Are you gonna disclose your personal contributions?'
If Obama-Clinton are race baiting and playin the race card...Russert is playing the elite card..
One more thing, it wasnt Clinton or Obama who started the race thing...it was a supporter of Obama's who tried to undermine the Clinton's support for MLK....Unfortunately those playing the race card are not whites....Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are prime examples
My parents, who were both Republicans, would be aghast at how divisive and ugly the Republican party has become.
Jacob, you're right about the race card thing-- it's the media and Obama people who are bringing it up, and then blaming the Clintons for it-- without EVER citing evidence anywhere. It's called the big-lie tactic.
The left in this Party-- if Obama prevails-- are sealing their own doom, just like when they piously supported Nader. Obama hasn't a CHANCE against McCain. THE MSM has shot their wad against Hillary and it backfires, always..
But they're just getting started with Obama.
I disagree. I would vote for Obama if he became the nominee. I think there is such a thing as a moment in time that is ripe for change. And although I support Edwards because I think he advocates more progressive policies than either Hillary or Obama, all three have strong points.
The Right Wing machine has nothing in their quiver except cutting taxes and appealing to predjudice. So any of the three will win over the Repub.
Obama will lose horribly to Republicans.
It's inevitable.
And what's this thing about 'Change?' Yeah, I could go right now and play on the freeway, and get hit by a car, and yeah, that would be CHANGE, wouldn't it?
Screw change. What does that mean?
Some politicians have a charisma that gives people optimism just by the nature of their being. Obama has that. Kennedy had that, and Roosevelt had that.
The kind of attitude that you express is not realism, it's just your opinion. All the prognosticators in the world have been wrong most of the time. And your negativity is creating bad feelings, not contributing to anything positive about the candidates.
Obama is no Kennedy and he is no Roosevelt. That's a ridiculous comparison.
And what appeal? Pretty speeches full of foam and hackneyed phrases? Naive, disingenuous words about "unity" that both make no sense and evade the real issues at hand?
I'm supporting Edwards because his positions are well thought out and articulate. If Obama becomes the Democratic candidate, I will vote for him...But you're staking a position of great overseeer/guru of the electorate that is just plain arrogant.
You remind me of the Nader voters who were sooooo sure that everyone who didn't vote for Ralph was just selling out.
That was a great and interesting video clip, thanks for putting it up K.H. and MMFA. It must hell though, to have to sift through so many hours of hatred and slander and innuendo, just to recover the few sensible moments of Mr. Crawford's observation.
He calls it "mental illness", but I think he's too kind. There's no end to the number of malicious criminals who would rather plead insanity as their defense (and thereby merit compassion and help, instead of punishment), than be accused of fraud or slander or simply being a vicious liar... "mental illness" is too good a label to put on it.
It's not fair to mentally ill people, to compare whatever it is that plagues them, with the words and lies of a vicious and malicious slandering "media", that plagues us.
Also, where the hack woman introduces the clip of Mr. Clinton speaking, I thought that as she spoke, she almost chokes/slurs in an embarrassed way, as she inserts the word "race" into her introduction:
[from the transcript] "Here's Bill Clinton on the campaign trail yesterday talking about whether or not his wife is a polarizing figure, and the word "race" does come up as well. Take a listen."
...but the video clip then shown of Mr. Clinton, makes no mention whatsoever of the word "race", or even of the thought of it, in any way at all.
What's up with that?
And then when the clip of Mr. Clinton ends, the hack woman chimes in first, with a remarkable "Wow!"
Wow what?
And so Mr. Crawford was prompted to his observation, sane sensible objective true and about as rare on these television shows, as are ice cubes in a desert.
But to call that hack woman's feigned shock at Mr. Clinton's comments (which were also nothing but sane sensible objective and true), and her imagined reference to the word "race"... to call this "mental illness" is to be too nice to the slandering hack of a liar.
I think there's a tendency for people to over simplify this debate. A: The original MLK remard was not racist. It was racially insensitive, though. And it was that insensitivity, combined with the various Clinton surrogates bringing up drug use, Obama's middle name, the suggestion by Bob Kerrey that Obama went to school in something called a 'secular madrassa' (something you'd expect most university presidents to understand does not exist), Andrew Cuomo's reference of candidates 'shucking and jiving' and yes, Clinton's reference of Obama's (entierly distorted) war position as a fairy tale, amplified that insensitivity to a degree that caused many to question whether or not all of these instances were isolated and unimportant or part of something larger.
Craig Crawford is a Democratic shill hoping to keep the party together and united around the person he sees as the most likely nominee. He thinks Clinton is going to win, and he's not about to admit that the Clinton campaign has brought much of this upon themselves. Nor is he lining up to criticize the Clintons for openly lying about Obama's Reagan/Republican quotes, or the various distortions of Obama's record the Clinton's have made in an attempt to mislead the electorate.
I think there's a tendency for people to over simplify this debate. A: The original MLK remard was not racist. It was racially insensitive, though.
It was made racially insensitive by the Hillary bashers. It was a factually correct statement that was totally independent of race except in a historical context (ie.g., MLK could not have become President in that racist time).
And it was that insensitivity, combined with the various Clinton surrogates bringing up drug use,
"surrogates" is Hillary bashing. You are claiming that all of her supporters are somehow directly connected to her or her campaign and are thus campaign remarks, not the remarks of an individual.
Clinton's reference of Obama's (entierly distorted) war position as a fairy tale
From an NPR article: "Obama did say in a campaign speech in 2003 that he would have voted against $87 billion in war funding approved by the Senate. But it is also true that Obama repeatedly voted for such war funding once he got to the Senate; he defended that stance in a December 2006 interview.[...] Clinton also accused Obama on Meet the Press of having kept quiet too long on Iraq, saying, "When he became a senator, he didn't go to the floor of the Senate to condemn the war in Iraq for 18 months. He didn't introduce legislation against the war in Iraq.""
Craig Crawford is a Democratic shill hoping to keep the party together and united around the person he sees as the most likely nominee. He thinks Clinton is going to win, and he's not about to admit that the Clinton campaign has brought much of this upon themselves.
I think you, like many other Obama supporters, are so angered by the New Hampshire and Nevada losses and Hillary's lead in the national polls that you cannot think objectively. You want so badly for your candidate to win that you are blaming any of his losses on the Clintons rather than on the people who actually voted. Revenge will backfire on you.
I think you, like many other Obama supporters, are so angered by the New Hampshire and Nevada losses and Hillary's lead in the national polls that you cannot think objectively. You want so badly for your candidate to win that you are blaming any of his losses on the Clintons rather than on the people who actually voted. Revenge will backfire on you.
Look, I freely admit that I am disheartened by the fact that the voters are voting in favor of Clinton over Obama. I found it just as disheartening when the American people chose Bush over both Gore and Kerry. That being said, the fact that I am upset by the outcome doesn't prevent me from being objective. The Clintons have, on more than one occasion made knowingly false statements with regard to Obama quotes. Even if you ignore the blatant distortions of his record, they have clearly and repeatedly said he's said things he never said. They know they're doing. From an objective perspective, when someone knowingly makes false statements they want people to accept as true, what is that called?
I think it's called lying. And I think people who lie are called liars. You can continue to rationalize all you want, but rationalization is not justification. Nor is victory.
pretty clear that Republicans won the war of ideas throughout much of the 1990s. The so-called Contract for America established the party as a dominant force in the 1990s. The Democrats have largely been playing catch up since 1994. That's a pretty solid statement of objective fact.
The notion that they've played themselves out is not to suggest he was endorsing the ideas. Instead, it suggests the American people are done with them (i.e. no longer compelled by them).
the complete quotes are in this link, about a quarter down. obama said this of reagan:
"he put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. i think they felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the 60s and 70s, you know government had grown and grown, but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating and i think people just tapped into--he tapped into what people were already feeling, which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism, and you know, entrepeneurship that had been missing."
it's not that i don't think things could be toned down a little, i really thought the hit job comment was uncalled for, but when you look at a quote like this, that could be something mitt romney or huckabee would say in the debates. it sounds like one of those morning in america commercials. it's all those catch phrases about the excesses of the 60s and 70s, turbulent times no doubt, but out of that era did come the basis for things like environmentalism.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/23/14143/6945
Dude, wake-up, those Morning in America commercials worked. Ronald Reagan united the country behind his candidacy. It helped that the Democratic Party and the American economy were completely in disarray at the time.
Still, look at an electoral breakdown of 1980 and 1984. Then look at one for 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004, and you tell me Ronald Reagan was not a transformative figure in a way that Bill Clinton always wanted to be. Reagan acheived things from a strictly political standpoint that Bill Clinton (who never received a majority of the vote) wants people to believe are impossible simply because he couldn't do them.
No, he said the people bought into it. The people were thinking it, and Reagan led a movement into the White House. He brought a lot of people on board, and he had the capital necessary to make the changes people wanted. Changes the Clintons have praised openly over the years.
If you want to get to the reason the Clintons are mad, look to the other two presidents named: Clinton and Nixon. Two presidents from two parties whose personal flaws played a great role in damaging their party for years to come. Clinton wants to be Reagan. He wants to be Kennedy. He wants to be FDR. And if Obama beats him, he's not any of that. He's Nixon. He's LBJ. He's no longer part of the solution. He's part of the problem. That's what got the Clintons upset.
If it's a value judgement then it is a judgement on the insight and compelling nature of the movement. A judgement validated by history. It is not a judgement or validation of the movement itself.
Even if you think it is, you cannot argue in favor of Hillary Clinton saying in the debate that Obama "SAID he LIKED" the Republican ideas. Can you?
Your interpretation says more about you than it does about the words themselves.
BREAKER:
Which of Reagan's accomplishments are you most proud of?
He increased the DEBT by about $3 trillion, he ballooned the SIZE OF GOVERNMENT, he sent troops into Beirut, got 260 killed, and then "cut and ran", he oversaw Iran-Contra, he engineered the S&L meltdown that cost the taxpayers tens of Billions of dollars ... his RECORD was dismal.
The USSR went bankrupt in his successor's watch, true, but bankrupting the USSR took place over 40 YEARS of American defense spending, which was spent by Democratic Majority Congresses (the President can't spend a dime).
So, again, it seems you're making a purely EMOTIONAL decision on Reagan. Maybe you liked his actor's smile, he seemed presidential, he could give a rousing speech. But the NATION was harmed greatly by many of his "conservative" policies (turning liberal programs over to predatory looters), and his "conservative" record was lousy.
It's his IMAGE you seem to like, the history revisionism written by Rightwingers to have a president of their own of the stature of, say, FDR, to be proud of. It's FICTION.
That's a pretty solid statement of objective fact.
You could arguably state that republicans won the war of ideas but saying republicans were the party of ideas is not "a pretty solid statement of objective fact."
saying that they were the "party of ideas" for the last 15 years implies that they were viable policies. they weren't. they were just more of the reaganesque let's give more to the wealthy, screw the environment, same old same old.
No, it doesn't. It simply does not. It states outright that they were the party presenting ideas that challenged the conventional wisdom. It means they were able to rebrand themselves to America and rebrand the Democrats while they were at it. And the Democrats allowed them to because they didn't see the need to adapt their message.
You can try to rationalize Hillary Clinton saying he said something she knew he didn't say, but you'll never be able to justify it. Why? Because it's a lie. And you know it's a lie. And if you're not willing to accept the simple and undeniable fact that she and her husband clearly lied to the American people, then I'd just say that you're probably not the best guy to go to for spotting subtle, but misleading distortions.
Don't be silly. What brand works is what the people are drawn to. Most liberals don't even understand the meaning of the word liberal, and they're certainly afraid to identify with that word anymore: They're progressives now.
But again, it's not the ideas that either myself or Barack Obama are giving validation to. Challenging the conventional wisdom is not necessarily the mark of a great idea. Some of the greatest ideas do challenge conventional wisdom. Some of the most compelling ideas challenge the conventional wisdom. Sometimes the worst ideas are the most compelling.
Don't be silly. What brand works is what the people are drawn to. Most liberals don't even understand the meaning of the word liberal, and they're certainly afraid to identify with that word anymore: They're progressives now.
Is your definition of liberal close to the way Australians define it and is that what are you?
And I have no problem calling myself a liberal.
when obama used the phrases "excesses" of the 60s and 70s, and how government had "grown and grown", that seems to be a tacit endorsement of reagan's policies. my view would be that the excesses were of the reagan era, massive debt and a huge taxpayer bailout of the savings and loan industry. a bailout made necessary because of the loosening of rules that reagan warmly endorsed when sign a bill loosening them. read the link, scroll down to chapter 1,
http://www.fictionwise.com/ebooks/eBook2072.htm
If anything, that's a criticism of the sixties and seventies. But again, he's speaking to what people were 'seeing' and 'feeling.' And the fact that Ronald Reagan was able to tap into those sentiments and establish a real coalition to 'change the trajectory.'
It's simply dishonest to say Obama said he liked the ideas or offered any praise to the ideas themselves. As much as you want to rationalize the interpretation that he did, you have to accept that he never said he liked the ideas. He never offered praise of them beyond a recognition that they were effectively sold to the American public. These are simple facts that the Clintons tried to deny. They've stated, in fact, that the opposite was true. Look at the quotes. Tell me if he said he liked them. Then go back and look at the debate and tell me if Hillary Clinton did not lie to the American people on National television.
Anti-poverty, anti-welfare, anti affirmative action. Restarting the "Southern Strategy" which is code word for anti-African American, anti-integration, pro-segregation.
On August 4, 1980, Ronald Reagan began his presidential campaign with a speech near Philadelphia, Mississippi at the annual Neshoba County Fair. During the speech, Reagan told the crowd, "Programs like education and others should be turned back to the states and local communities with the tax sources to fund them. I believe in states’ rights. I believe in people doing as much as they can at the community level and the private level."[ He went on to promise to "restore to states and local governments the power that properly belongs to them."
During the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, the longstanding use of states' rights to maintain Southern racial politics was highlighted with proponents of racial segregation and Jim Crow laws denouncing federal interference in these state-level policies
From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."[
"Look, I freely admit that I am disheartened by the fact that the voters are voting in favor of Clinton over Obama. I found it just as disheartening when the American people chose Bush over both Gore and Kerry."
That's insanity, that comparison.
If it's typical of the kind of thinking that is going on with Obama supporters, we're doomed to 20 more years of Republican rule.
Atheist, I may be mistaken, but if my memory of past comments is right, Breakerbaker is not an Obama supporter, but a conservative counting on the outcome suggested by you above (and simplified by Draftedin68).
Breaker, excuse me if I'm wrong about this.
It was made racially insensitive by the Hillary bashers. It was a factually correct statement that was totally independent of race except in a historical context (ie.g., MLK could not have become President in that racist time).
Interpretation doesn't make a statement insensitive. The quote was insensitive because it marginalized and minimized the role of MLK (whether or not that was her intent) in favor of LBJ. Nobody thought MLK could sign legislation. Clinton's 'history lesson' was not only condescending it was insensitive. Racist? Clearly not. Insensitive? Um, it offended the sensitivities of many by simply not considering them, so yeah.
"surrogates" is Hillary bashing. You are claiming that all of her supporters are somehow directly connected to her or her campaign and are thus campaign remarks, not the remarks of an individual.
The beauty of isolated incidents is that they're isolated. The problem with a number of isolated incidents is that they begin to feel like a pattern. The problem with a pattern is that it's impossible for patterns to not feel intentional.
On Clinton's reference of Obama's (entierly distorted) war position as a fairy tale From an NPR article:
The former president truncated and decontextualize a quote from the NY Times:
In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.
''But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''
But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ''What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,'' he said.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407E2DF153DF935A15754C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
One thing is for certain, had it been Tim Russert and not President Bill Clinton (or even Keith Olbermann), that's the sort of thing that would have been torn apart on MMFA
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711110004
Instead of repeatedly defended:
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=fairy+tale
Atheist, again, don't try to reason with most Obama supporters.
They're going to bring this Democratic Party-- and the country-- to ruination.
If the Democratic party wants to spend the next 20 years in nostalgia over Bill Clinton, then the Democratic party has wrought its own folly. And good riddance to bad rubbish.
As I thought long ago from your posts. A Democratic Party basher. If I were you, I would spend a bit more time worrying about THIS president who will be successful in electing Democrats for as far as the eye can see.
Mari
PS: Note I even am smart enough to spell it correctly, unlike the concerted, childish approach of the Republicans to leave off the last syllable in the name, you know calling it the Democrat Party. Perhaps they simply cannot read at that high level to be able to say a 4 syllable word, ie the democrat IC party.
Um...I'm not partisan. The beauty of being post-partisan is the ability to stop feeling the need to defend a party that you spent too much of your life feeling the responsibility to defend even when it was wrong. Even when it continues to be wrong.
The Republicans are not right. Good riddance to them too if they cannot get beyond where they have been for the last 15 years.
Extinction is the rule. Evolution is the exception. I think both parties have the ability to be exceptional. But they have to want that.
FINALLY someone called the media out on what they've been doing. I mean, the way that Clinton speech was commented on afterwards by Scarborough was ludicrous. He shows such disdain and the says that Clinton is SO divisive. Give me a break! This is insane! Clinton says in his speech that the Republicans are the ones who divided the country. That's like saying to someone who criticized Bush for not reaching out across the aisle during his presidency, "Why are you being so divisive?" How do people not see what the media is doing.
Crawford was DEAD ON.
Regarding the 9AM, 1/26/08 interview between Joe Scarborough and Craig Crawford, Crawford was absolutely right when he refuted Joe's ridiculous, scripted, biased comments about Clinton's alleged racism.
When Crawford pressed Scarborough for examples, Scarborough
couldn’t produce one.
Crawford was able to point out, very perceptively, that it was Obama who started using the race card when Oprah stumped for him. If that isn't appealing to race and creating an us-against-them atmosphere, I don't know what it.
If you check TV ratings you’ll see Oprah's have tanked because her racism was so blatantly obvious to her mostly white audience that they abandoned her in droves. They saw Oprah and Obama for what they are.
Ironically, Oprah once belonged to the same church as Obama, the Trinity Cavalry Church of Chicago, which promotes Afro-centrist goals. The press cowards have kept a hands-off attitude about Obama's religious affiliation with radical preacher Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, the recipient of the church magazines achievement award for 2007 and an avowed Black Muslim, while going full force against Romney for being a Mormon.
Crawford was also correct that the press has launched a full-out offensive, a 'shock and awe' journalistic approach to destroying the Clintons.
But the Clinton's have survived far worse than the puny paintballs Scarborough and company toss at them and even though they'll continue promoting the ‘poor Obama, he's such an innocent' mantra, they won't bring Clinton down.
She has far more strength, insight, courage and integrity then most journalists, sitting, unscathed, in the rarefied air of their corporate, sanitized observatory towers will ever have.
Kudos to Craig.
I HAVE LONG BEEN A FAN OF CRAIG CRAWFORD. I HAVE BEEN SO PLEASED TO SEE THAT CRAIG IS A MUCH NEEDED VOICE OF REASON IN THE SEA OF SLIME THAT WE ARE SATURATED WITH FROM THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA. THANK YOU, CRAIG!!!! THANK YOU, VERY MUCH!!!!!
It Is About Time Someone Speaks The Truth In The Media
Although I disagree with whether the bias is helping the Clintons, it is truly refreshing to hear someone speak the truth about what my eyes have scene since Hillary Clinton became a Democratic candidate. The right-wing media is all over the Clintons, and it amounts to free campaign ads for her opponents.
Equally troubling is watching the same right-wing media set back and claim the bias is not their. It is almost as if the media is saying the viewers are stupid and will believe anything they feed them as the truth. When MSNBC does acknowledge the bias, they in the very next statement continue the bias. This bias has been very interfering to me. I can't tell if Obama's appeal is a result of his message or the result of the media's handy work. I want to support the best person for the Democratic Party nomination.
I would not be surprised if Clinton won the South Carolina. I have notice the media also seems to order their own polling results to support the commentary opinions. In fact, if you watch the polls very closely, you will notice CNN/fill in the blank polls aways support the media's points.
My biggest concern is the "division factor." If the Republican sponsored bias manages to divide the Democratic camps, they may not come together to beat the Republicans in the general election. Their is truly a master plan at work hear, and so far, the Obama supporters have sucked up everything the media has put out concerning the Clintons. When I look at some of the posted comments on this site, you would think you were at Republican talking points central.
Joseph
"I mean, we've gotten into a situation where if you try to be fair to the Clintons, if you try to be objective, if you try to say, 'Well, where's the evidence of racism in the Clinton campaign?' you're accused of being a naïve shill for the Clintons." He later added: "I really think it's a problem."
Craig you can’t have it both ways and THAT is what the Clintons are trying to do. They sling mud, lie and distort comments and records and then use the fall back of media hating the Clintons. It is true that previous media coverage of the Clintons bordered on the surreal, Vince Foster was killed by the Clintons, Bill Clinton is a serial rapist and on and on. The media appeared like rabid dogs when reporting on the Clintons and I for one never bought into that crap, I voted for Bill Clinton twice however the current coverage of Bill and Hillary since the Iowa primary is something THEY have earned. Watching the Bill & Hillary show since Iowa has me asking myself were the Republicans right all along? The article contained a phrase "Am I becoming a Clinton hater? I wonder the same thing about myself cause I sure as hell won‘t vote for her. If I do, I'm saying the Bill & Hillary show is OK so long as we win. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-chait26jan26,0,7890763.column
Bill and Hillary want to win period and they don’t care how dirty they have to get, how much damage they may due and who they step on to get Hillary a win.
The media did not misspeak regarding MLK, the media did not bring surrogates supporting Hillary out to first questions IF Obama was “black enough” and then try to define him as ONLY a “black presidential candidate”, the media did not put Clinton supporter and surrogate Andrew Young’s quote “Bill is just as black as Obama” in his mouth, the media did not put Clinton supporter and surrogate Robert Johnson’s “doing what he was doing, and you know what I’m talking about” into his speech, try to pretend that he wasn’t hinting at Obama selling drugs lie, the media did not send out mailers lying about Obama position on abortion, no the media did not do any of those things, "Bill and Hillary for President" did and they have to accept the backlash they're receiving. To be fair the media has not been kind to Hillary, making despairing remarks about her laugh, thighs and other things which have no baring on her qualifications as President however you can’t have it both ways. Bill and Hillary’s hands are not clean either and as my momma would say “You lay down with the dogs you wake up with fleas”. When your hands are clean you can complain however when you use the media you get used in return.
I’m just wondering how the Clintons and their supporters expect to get a united party come November. When labeling Obama supporters, naive, pissy, loons, whinny, stupid Obama supporting Democrats by a fellow Democrat somehow it STILL sounds INSULTING! Especially if you’re asking for my support and trying to unite. I'm CERTAINLY not asking you to kiss my a** but you damn well can't insult me either!
You Are Right About One Thing
You comments are "statement" rich and with no real examples of unfair campaign practices from the Clintons. In fact, you are right about taking a Republican perspective. You sound like a Republican. Maybe you are in the wrong Party.
Joseph
Okay, if we ignore distortions of Obama's clear and unwavering opposition to the war, the numerous Clinton surrogates that have had to apologise to Senator Obama for having focused on his teenage drug use, his middle name, or the fictional notion that he spent some time being schooled in a madrassa, the shuck and the jive, and the repeated marginalization of a 46 year old man as a 'young African-American', even if we ignore all of this, we can still focus on the campaign of the last two weeks where the Clintons repeatedly said Obama praised the substance of Republican ideas. This is demonstrably untrue, yet there was Hillary Clinton in the debate saying that Obama 'said he liked' Republican ideas! That's not true. She knows it's not true. She lied. She's a liar. That's not subjective. That's objective.
"the repeated marginalization of a 46 year old man as a 'young African-American', even if we ignore all of this, we can still focus on the campaign of the last two weeks where the Clintons repeatedly said Obama praised the substance of Republican ideas."
OK..it's really getting nauseating now. Since when is referring to a person as "young" become a "marginalization". The statement was made by Hillary on the occasion of MLK Day and was in reference to how far we had come when a "young African-American" can be running for President. Now that supposed to be a SLANDER? Don't Americans love to be seen as young and vibrant..people like..oh, I don't know..JFK or Bill Clinton? And by the way, if you say the Republicans are the party of ideas over the last 10 or 15 years and you are running for Pres. as a Democrat don't you think it'd be a good idea to spell out that they were, indeed, BAD ideas? And wouldn't you expect your opponents to pick up on such a statement if you did not point that out? I like Obama but if he can't take the heat of primary imagine how delicate he will be in the general election.
When it's paired with comments about his lack of experience, it's most certainly marginalization, no less than when someone comments that he's neat and well-spoken.
Given "Obama's clear and unwavering opposition to the war," please let me know exactly how many times the good Senator has brought proposals to the floor of the Senate calling for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. If you can't find any, then I'll settle for knowing exactly how many times Senator Obama has voted to cut off funding to pay for the war he "clearly and unwaveringly" opposes.
Give me a break. Obama is the ultimate poser; he was against the war "all along" because he wasn't in the Senate at the time. Now that he's in the Senate, he votes the same way as Hillary Clinton does on the war.
Given "Obama's clear and unwavering opposition to the war," please let me know exactly how many times the good Senator has brought proposals to the floor of the Senate calling for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. If you can't find any, then I'll settle for knowing exactly how many times Senator Obama has voted to cut off funding to pay for the war he "clearly and unwaveringly" opposes.
I've been against the war from the beginning, but that position becomes more complicated once an invasion has occured. It is the point of no return. A responsible person does not call for immediate withdrawl from a nation your invasion has completely destablized. Come on, this was the argument most intelligent people opposing the war made before the invasion; it doesn't become invalid simply because the invasion occured. You can't go in, destroy the place, create a hotbed of violence, and then not accept your responsibility in seeking stability.
Give me a break. Obama is the ultimate poser; he was against the war "all along" because he wasn't in the Senate at the time. Now that he's in the Senate, he votes the same way as Hillary Clinton does on the war.
Hillary Clinton was for the war after the invasion. It took her years to at least recoginse the problem with the war ran a little deeper than mismanagement. Barack Obama didn't have to make the vote. That doesn't excuse Hillary Clinton for making the wrong one, and being the last to admit it was the wrong one.
No wonder you support Obama, you share his talent for avoiding the issue. If the war was bad THEN, why is he supporting it NOW?
But you're right, Obama wasn't in the Senate when the decision had to be made, so he can basically take the popular stand now. Of course, this is the way he's run his whole career- jump to the next rung before building any kind of record that he might get called on to defend later. Five minutes as a neighborhood organizer before running for Congress, five minutes in the State Legislature before running for Senate, five minutes in the Senate before running for President.
Someone tell Barack that there's no rung after the Presidency. It would be nice to think he has some plan of what he would like to actually DO should he achieve that goal. Or does he plan to just start writing his memoirs at that time?
I guess you're really mad tonight. Um...sorry.
In short, Obama's not supporting the war. He's funded the troops because to defund the troops or call for immediate pull out would be to deny America's responsibility and culpability in Iraq. If you were against the war from the beginning, I'm sure you considered the notion that we would be required to stay longer than we wanted or thought we should. That's the way most of us were talking.
As for his record, Obama went from college to several years as a community organizer to going to Harvard Law School. From Harvard, he went on to be a civil rights attorney and a professor of constitutional law. When he ran for the state legislature, he was 5 years after law school. He was in the legislature for 8 years before becoming a member of the US Senate. He's actually spent more time in elected office than either of his Democratic rivals.
I'm not angry, I'm just sick of the nonstop gushing over a guy who hasn't accomplished anything beyond making a few "inspirational" speeches. And BTW, you failed to mention that the only reason Obama didnt serve only four years in the State Legislature instead of eight was because he ran for Congress in 2000. The point I was making is still valid-- he's never stayed anywhere long enough to make an impact. And if I think if he actually gave a speech in which he focused on enlightening rather than inspiring, I'd be really impressed.
The war issue is just a joke- Obama and Clinton have the same voting record in the time Obama has been in the Senate. It's really great that Obama says he wouldn't have voted to support the use of force in 2002. It's also totally irrelevant. And, in my opinion, it's just too easy a claim for Obama to make now that it's politically expedient for him to do so. He might as well say he wouldn't have voted for use of force in 1991 either. The point is, what is he doing NOW? Voting to keep billions of dollars flowing into Iraq to continue the killing.
Sorry, no sale.
Look, you can support whomever you want. It took me a while to decide whether I was going to support anybody. I'm not shilling, but you are clearly pretty anti-Obama. My wife's not a huge believer either. I don't know that I'm a believer, but I know that he sounds better and smarter than any of the people we do have to choose from. People always want to tout experience with Senator Clinton, but there's quite a lot we don't know--and she won't tell us--about her experience. That's a fact. For someone who's talking about an examination of records, she doesn't seem in any hurry to show any real proof of the private role she played in the Clinton White House.
As to the war, a Democratic senate authorized the use of force in Iraq. They could have stopped it, but they didn't even read the NIE. They voted in favor of the IWR to try and preserve a slim plaurality they held at the time. There were 50 Democrats, and 29 of them voted in favor. One thing Hillary Clinton wants people to forget is that she was hawkish on this war for years. That's years plaural. She can complain today about how her vote was for diplomacy, but that's a story one can only accept if they don't remember her public statements through most of 2005.
Obama has supported war funding. Considering the state of things, that's the responsible thing to do. Don't you wish Hillary Clinton had been responsible all those years ago?
http://www.taylormarsh.com/
You won't be able to argue with this, but if you are a typical Obama fan, you'll let it glide right past you anyway.
why an African-American would be a democrat is beyond me. No different than Jews being democrats even though the party just kicks them in the teeth. At the start of the '67 war, Johnson abandoned Israel and so the war began. Carter hates Israel and Jews because they won't do what he says. Clinton forced Israel into the Oslo accords that led to the deaths of thousands when Arafat resorted to terrorism.
On the other hand, during the 73 war Nixon rearmed Israel over the objection of Kissinger. Reagan refused to punish Israel after they blew up the Iraqi nuclear power plant. Bush has been a staunch supporter of Israel and the best president we could, as for this issue, hope for.
But Jews still pull the Democrat lever no matter what. Just like African-Americans. What have the dems ever done for you? The civil rights act was only passed because of republican votes in congress. It was all the southern democrats that fought against it, including Clinton's mentor, Fulbright, and Gore's dad too.
why an African-American would be a democrat is beyond me. No different than Jews being democrats even though the party just kicks them in the teeth.
Apparently, American Jews have a different perspective on things.
At the start of the '67 war, Johnson abandoned Israel and so the war began.
This is beyond my knowledge but this sounds like right wing spin.
Carter hates Israel and Jews because they won't do what he says.
Carter is doing what's in the best interest of Israel. And I think the only reason why right-wingers are so "pro-Israel" is that they hate Muslims more than they hate Jews.
Clinton forced Israel into the Oslo accords that led to the deaths of thousands when Arafat resorted to terrorism.
How did Clinton force Israel into the Oslo accords?
And I see situation between the Israelis and the Palestinians differently than you do. There are people on both sides who see that area as their holy land and compromising is out the question.
I appreciate you replying to that ignorant dope. I really don't have the energy anymore; its like arguing with a sack of doorknobs.
There are things that people "just know," and they couldn't care less if they are true or not, they "just know " them.
All those statements are so ludicrous as to be complete delusion. It might have played out that way on Planet WINGNUT here on Earth its so much hoooey. The statements that arent just baseless assertions like Carter hating Jews are just dumb. The 67 war lasted six days, it is CALLED the six day war. Israel invaded Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Six days later the war was over. I dont even know what abandonment is supposed to mean its not like they needed help and didnt get it. Johnson did critisize Israeli actions as counteproductive and an overreaction but hystericalbuff is out to lunch.
Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israel ships, violting law of the seas. Johnson promised to put an international flotilla together to break the blockade. Never happened. Israel was then, alone, threatened and attacked preemptively. It doesn't take much to get the facts. The fact that Israel was victorious doesn't make the nation's plight less compelling.
In the 73 war they almost resorted to nuclear weapons.
"What have the dems ever done for you?"
They've done more than the GOP, that's for sure. Let's see . . .
The Voting Rights Act, Affirmative Action, The Head Start program, school desegregation, advocated for women with the ERA, kept a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion safe and legal, given gays and lesbians hope that they will be treated fairly, etc.
The question you need to honestly ask yourself is what the GOP has done for women and minorities. If you're honest at all the answer is "squat!"
I must say, you are dumber than dirt. the voting rights act of 1965 was enacted only with the help of Republicans. Southern Dems, like Al Gore, Sr.,and William Fulbright were opposed.
Affirmative Action is a rip off. Head Start sounds good but is a failed program. As far as abortion rights, it's only the supreme court, not the dems or the republicans who have anything to say about it.
There were more minorities appointed to important positions in this administration than in any prior one. Sec of State (two blacks), Sec of Commerce (hispanic), women galore, even the head of the BEP is black.
"I must say, you are dumber than dirt. the voting rights act of 1965 was enacted only with the help of Republicans. Southern Dems, like Al Gore, Sr.,and William Fulbright were opposed."
OH SNAP! OH NO YOU DIDN'T JUST GO THERE DID YOU? A correct reading of history supports the FACT that the left have been for more supportive of civil rights. Lyndon Johnson (a Democrat last time I checked) sent the legislation to Congress, and proclaimed upon signing it that he was "signing away the South for 50 years" since dixiecrats would bolt to the GOP in response -- and the GOP would of course welcome and pander to this racist element for decades to come as part of their Southern Strategy. That's a fact moron, since you claim to be a history buff. More like a history buffoon.
"Affirmative Action is a rip off. Head Start sounds good but is a failed program. As far as abortion rights, it's only the supreme court, not the dems or the republicans who have anything to say about it."
What in the name of Che Guevara are you talking about! How is affirmative action a rip-off? How has Head Start failed? Dems have nothing to do with abortion rights!? You just make these idiotic statements with no supporting argument whatsoever. Your idiocy is really unprecedented among posters here. How are things on "Bizarro World" these days? Your village just called, they want their idiot back.
Krome I agree that all three are fine candidates. I have said many times before that I would vote for a Democratic whether it be Hillary, Obama or Edwards. However I do believe the Clintons are currently running a nasty, dirty campaign against a fellow Democratic.
IMO, the reason you never heard any negative comments about Obama from the Clintons before is because they believed as many did that she would get the nomination. They called her the “enevatable” winner. Heck Republicans began running against long before she announced her candidacy.
When Hillary starting losing in Iowa this happened: Hillary Clinton's campaign asked one of its volunteer county coordinators in Iowa to step down after the person forwarded an e-mail falsely stating that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Now I’m going to say that stuff like that happens, can’t control everything and the person stepped down. I had previously watched Andrew Young explain that "Bill is just as black as Obama" which I found insulting. Not only to Obama but black folks as well basically implying we would vote for Obama just because he’s black or Obama's appeal to black folks was only his race, nothing else. I even let Young’s “ To put a brother in there by himself is to set him up for crucifixion pass. His support of Clinton and his comments troubled me but, hey I let it go. Of course I know the Clintons were shocked as hell that Obama, a black man won in a state with a 95% white population.
On to New Hampshire where Bill Shaheen, Clinton’s co-chair in NH "The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight...and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use," said Shaheen. Obama had admitted publicly about drug use in his youth but following Bill Shaheen’s comment rumors spread about Obama’s drug dealing, not just drug use. Of course Bill Shaheen stepped down, apologized and Hillary herself apologized to Obama at the airport tarmac. New Hampshire proved a surprise to both Clintons and Obama. Polls had Obama winning by a large margin which turned out to be not true. New Hampshire was the ’fairy tale” comment but, I took him at Bill at his word. I would say that I know Bill Clinton to be one of the best politicians around and each and every word he utters have meaning but if he says the words were unfortunate then I accept that. I even was willing to overlook Bill’s comment that due to Obama’s inexperience a vote for him would make his Presidency a “roll of the dice”. I’m overlooking but people are stepping down and the apologies issued are growing but onward to South Carolina.
That is where I personally decided enough is enough. Robert Johnson was the straw that broke the camels back. Standing on stage introducing Hillary he says: "As an African-American, I'm frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Bill and Hillary Clinton have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood that -- I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book," while campaigning at the largely black Northminster Presbyterian Church in Columbia, South Carolina. Initially both Johnson and Clinton said that Johnson was speaking about Obama’s time as a community organizer and not hinting or implying drug dealing. Of course later both Johnson as well as Clinton issued apologies to Obama and his family. Now I gotta wonder is it a surprise that Clinton and Johnson, a billionaire black man makes such comments before the primary in South Carolina where a majority of the Democratic voters are black?. Funny, I don’t think so.
I’m starting to see a pattern of Bill or a surrogate supporter sometimes black says something, it’s a media story for days whether true of not, and then your apologize or someone steps down. So either way they win. Obama has run a campaign not based on him being the first “black president”. His appeal has crossed all racial lines, hence his win in 95% white Iowa. They paint Obama as a “drug dealing” black man and blacks will come to his defense cause it's not true. Of course when Obama starts receiving attention from blacks they can then attach the “first black president” label turning off white voters who thought Obama's campaign was suppose to NOT be about race. It’s race baiting at it’s finest.
Obama says Regan changed the trajectory of the country. True considering the previous 60's and 70's. Hillary of course can’t have the imagine of attacking, already high negatives so she dispatches Corrine Brown and Barney Frank who stated that Obama said Regan and Republicans had great ideas. That’s not what he said and Hillary knew that. Of course Bill alsoe repeats the same lie. NEVER did Bill ever say that HE as a Democratic also praised Regan. It’s slimy, dirty, tacky and so much like Republicans.
How often has Bill attacked John Edwards? Ever? The Clinton campaign really hates Obama. I don’t think for one minute that they are racists. Let me say this again I Don’t Think That The Clintons Are Racist!!! I think they are using race to win which is so Republican. Obama has positive/negative in being a black presidential candidate and the Clintons are baiting one against the other. There are not a lot of policy differences so why the nasty campaigning? Is it because he might, just might destroy her chances of winning the nomination?
If the Bill and Hillary had gone after John Edwards they same way they’ve gone after Obama I would say that OK but they have not. The Clintons assume IMO that I as an African American while not liking nor agreeing with their tactics have no place else to go, I would never vote Republican. I find that insulting and almost like the Republicans who say black folks follow the Democrats like sheep. However I do have a choice, not vote for her period.
And other Democrats in Washington report encountering the same when speaking with Clinton campaign people. 'They really, really hate Obama,' one Democratic operative unaffiliated with any campaign, tells me. 'They can't stand him. They talk about him as if he's worse than Bush.' What do they hate about him? After all, there aren't a lot of deep policy differences between the two, and he hasn't gone for the jugular during the campaign. 'It's his presumptuousness,' this operative says. 'That he thinks he can deny her the nomination. Who is he to try to do that?' You mean, he's, uh, uppity? 'Yes.' A senior House Democratic aide notes, 'The Clinton people are going nuts in how much they hate him. But the problem is their narrative has gone beyond the plausible.' "
Thanks for the run down Pearl and I have a better understanding of your position and frustrations. I have not decided who to support, although I've worked on behalf of Edwards in the past.
I still don't agree though and think it media driven. I simply can't buy into the characterization of the Clinton's -- Hillary or Bill -- dispatching their minions to make these character assasinations. Andrew Young's comments were intended -- as I saw them -- to be humorous and a play on Bill's purported love of the ladies.
I really believe that given the very real prospect that history is being made with a female and black candidate with a real chance of winning, people are going to be "popping off" of their own accord and some of those comments will be assigned to the campaigns they are meant to help. It is going to be so easy for the media to assume and assign racist, racially insensitive, or sexist motivation for what would otherwise be seen as business as usual among slates of all white male candidates. I can't remember a civil presidential campaign in a race this highly contested in my lifetime.
Nevertheless, I understand your position and you make some valid points.
PEARL:
I would submit you reexamine your impression that Clinton is running a "dirty, nasty" campaign, and look at the individual instances MAKING YOUR OWN JUDGMENTS ... rather than falling for the spin and interpretations offered by the MEDIA.
There are very few instances to examine, actually. Hillary gives ML King great credit for pushing for civil rights change, and Johnson credit for handling the "official" governmental side of changing LAWS. Nothing wrong there, it's historical FACT.
A couple of people have mentioned Obama's drug use ... INCLUDING OBAMA in his book. Nothing racist about that, but it comes close to a definition of "dirty and nasty". Problem is, it wasn't Clinton doing it; she fired the only guy who was on staff for his comment. What's dirty and nasty about THAT?
Obama praises Reagan, and claims the Republicans had all the ideas for the past 15 years. The Clinton campaign disagrees. In response, Obama says he vorked hard AGAINST Reagan's policies, and that the GOP's ideas were BAD ideas. That clarification works for me, and was NEEDED; his original comments carried NONE of that rejection.
Hillary blasted Obama for his work with the Chicago slumlord, but this was a direct response to Obama blasting HER for working for Wal Mart. If it was dirty or nasty, it was mutual (With Obama trying to draw first blood). Plus, this is a CAMPAIGN. Such examinations of records are to be expected.
[Part of the rough-and-tumble of primary campaigning is to DIG UP some of these issues, to prepare the candidates for the General Election, where the Republicans will surely throw everything they can at the Democratic candidate, whoever he or she may be.]
So, I don't get what you're talking about being "dirty and nasty". SURE, if you listen to Scarborough or Matthews or any of a thousand other talking heads, this Democratic Primary campaign has gotten dirty, nasty, racist, and horrible enough to destroy the entire party. But this bears no resemblance to what I've observed ACTUALLY happening. It's all SPIN.
I pray you don't fall for the SPIN, and examine the instances independently.
Tex, let me first say I agree with many of your posts and respect your opinion however I MADE THIS JUDGEMENT ALL OWN MY OWN, NO MEDIA INVOLVED. As I’ve said many many times I have NO beef with Hillary over her MLK statement. She was speaking and in the heat of her speech she misspoke. LET ME SAY IT AGAIN, I DO NOT THINK THE CLINTONS ARE RACIST! I do think the Clintons are using surrogates to play the race card.
I don’t think that the reason black billionaire Robert Johnson was in South Carolina to offer his support for Hillary was simply a fluke. I don’t think that black billionaire made the statement that as a “African American” he was insulted by Obama nor do I think it was a fluke that he hinted at drug dealing, not drug use which Obama has publicly admitted. Besides reading the text of his comment, I watched a video. Initially and on the same day black billionaire Robert Johnson made his speech the Clinton camp issued a statement saying his comments were referring to Obama’s work as a community organizer. Now if the comments were innocent why did Johnson AND Hillary issue another apology to Obama and his family? Hillary ran ads in South Carolina saying that Obama like Republican ideas. It was a lie, she knew it was a lie but it didn’t stop her or Bill from repeating that lie.
Some would say it’s the surrogates not the Clintons but I say if you come out and publicly support Hillary then turn around and attack and make untrue statements about her opponent then it is one and the same. Bob Kerrey endorses Hillary then starts the Muslim bull about Obama. Andrew Young endorses Hillary and then starts the “Bill is just as black as Obama” bull. Robert Johnson endorses Hillary then stars the “drug dealing” bull. Bill Clinton congratulates Obama but before he actually congratulates him he must say Jessie Jackson won South Carolina in 84 & 88. WHAT do Jessie and Obama have in common?
Pattern, I simply see a pattern that I don't like and I'm not alone. There are many African Americans becoming more uncomfortable with the tone the Clinton campaign is taking regarding Obama.
Tex, my complaint with the dirty nasty comes from the racial aspect. I see Bill and Hillary trying desperately to label Obama as “black president” which IMO serves them two ways. The attacks will bring black voters to Obama’s defense and it will also allow them to label him the black president turning off white voters who like the fact that Obama was suppose to not be about race. It feels like a stunt Republicans would pull.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/27/clinton-camp-says-obama-i_n_83451.html
I fell that if she get the nomination and I vote for her "for the party's" sake then I'm saying all that sh*t they did that I objected to is OK and it's not. I'm not comfortable not voting but right now I much more uncomfortable voting for Hillary.
Craig Crawford is my new hero. The crew on Morning Joe has been hugely guilty of what it finds fault with in others..namely distorting and taking out of context the statements made by either of the Clintons. A case in point was the introduction to the Bill Clinton clip when the host said "and race is mentioned", implying that the Clintons were "once again" injecting race into their campaign. When you see the clip you realize that Bill Clinton mentions race by saying that he didn't believe "race or gender" had anything to do with the bashing of his wife. How does one distort the context of a statement more than Brzezinski did?
I have yet to decide whether I will vote on Feb 5th for Clinton or Obama. I think both make excellent candidates and will enthusiastically support either one of them (or Edwards for that matter) in the general election. But Crawford is right. The hideously unbalanced coverage by the television media lightweights is tending to push me toward Hillary.
Bill Moyers had the entire quote from HRC on his show last week. It was not arrogant or anti MLK in any way. In fact her words before the trunacted (and taken out of context ) statement promulgated by the press were very very complimentary to MLK, and they were historically correct on the sequence of events back in the day. The "news" bloviators were apparently succesful to some degree in getting people to think she made some gaffe (or insensitive remark) when she didn't.
As for the war, the only princilpled stand I can see so far (IMO) is that of Edwards saying that he was wrong to vote for authorization. Obama may not have been for the war, but he has indeed voted lockstep with HRC on the fundings and proposals since then. A person I admire a lot is Russ Feingold who has voted his conscience on the war consistently and has made lots of speeches as well. He is one of the only Dems that has really put himself out there. So the "the fairy tale remark was taken out of context and picked up by the "news" media. It was unfair. Michelle Obama also ran with it.
Now, having said all that I do not like that HRC brought up the "slum lord" bit in the debate. I also do not like a few other things. But I do not see Obama as a victim since he is capable of throwing some mud as well. I haven't made up my mind yet, but I still think the Dem candidates are far and away better than any Republicans. I don 't watch the cable "news"because of the way they distort and mischaracterize things. They also promote their own narrative. That narractive turns out to be false more times than not and it's little better than gossip.
So, yes, IMO the Clintons have been treated unfairly. No question.
When responding to questions about the MLK comment, HC made the point that it was Johnson who got the bill passed (over the heads of southern Democrats), and she obliquely slammed Eisenhower for not passing the bill.
Eisenhower did desegregate the DC schools and sent federalized the Arkansas national guard to desegregate Little Rock. But, of course, he was a Republican, so he can't get any credit for it. He must be EVIL.
Joseph, I'm a 73 year old African American and I have voted Democratic ALL MY LIFE. My FIRST vote was for John F. Kennedy. I've got SHOES older than YOU and you DARE to call me a Republican? What you and many others fail to understand is what I saw and heard was from the mouth of Andrew Young, Robert Johnson, Hillary Clinton and of course Bill. I'm a damn Democratic and just because I don't go along with "The Clintons" does not mean that I'm not a Democratic. It's comments like your and others that will continue to divide the party and will allow 8 more year of Republican rule. Maybe THEN you will understand that Democrats can differ but when you insult another Democratic JUST becuase they don't agree, you're NO better than REPUBLICANS!!!!!
- pearlene_scott1602
I am truly sorry for the way in which I wrote my comments regarding your opinion. I am really not that way and will not let this go without saying you have a right to have an opinion different then my own. I hope I can live as long as you have and accumulate the experiences you wrote about.
Joseph
why apologize. she's an idiot.
Ah, HSTYBUF655 you're getting scared huh. Just think either a black man or a woman will get to tell your ignorant a** what to do for the next 8 years. I suggest hiding under your bed with the rest of the Republicans. Oh and make sure to wear your depends, OK.
And you're just a rude a** who is clearly frustrated that your weird, twisted version of history isn't being swallowed whole here. Give it a rest.
Better yet, take your business elsewhere. You clearly have nothing to add here.
Sorry for the poorly worded apology Joseph.
I meant to say that I get angry when folks question if I'm a "true" Democratic just because I don't support Hillary. Lately some Hillary supporters who post here are juvenile and almost as nasty as Bill if you dare say that you don't support her. We are Democrats and liberals and should be able to have a civil discussion even if we don't always agree.
Pearlene, how is Bill being nasty?
He isn't. What's upsettng to me is that you are buying into all of this hate and propaganda about the Clintons.
Don't you also realize that there is no way the Republicans and the business elites are going to allow a Black Democrat into the White House?
It's all a set-up. They are picking our candidates for us-- Obama versus McCain. There is no way Obama is going to win this fight.
MSNBC is right back to it's favorite sport tonight, totally piling on Hillary Clinton- she didn't concede enough, she didn't acknowledge her loss enough, she's supposed to "follow the rules" by conceding, she didnt do that because the Clintons dont follow the rules, and on and on AND ON.
Keith Olbermann is rapidly losing me as a viewer- he's as disgustingly Anti-Hillary as anyone on the air. For Christ's sake, if these people could just get over their hatred of the Clintons and just REPORT THE FACTS we would be so much better off. This nonstop Hillary-bashing is just so, so old- if I wanted to see this, I'd watch Fox.
They are practically orgasmic over there at MSNBC tonight over Obama's big win in South Carolina, compared to the morgue-like atmosphere on nights when Hillary wins (of course, she only wins because she cries, or because of voter fraud or mob ties.) It's so transparent it's ludicrous.
CNN is just as bad. I think every single person on that panel expect Jeffery Toobin attacked Hillary and Bill negatively. I'm not a fan of the Clintons myself, but no one can deny the hatred the press corp. has for them. It's downright melodramatic how, for better or worse, they pile on the Clintons.
I get so disgusted how our media is so biased.
I think every single person on that panel expect Jeffery Toobin
EXCEPT, I meant to say in that sentence above. Sorry.
Actually Jamele, FOX was more fair than MSNBC.
MSNBC was crazy tonight-- I've never seen such bias! CNN wasn't much better, but MSNBC was so clearly anti-Clinton that it was sickening. They continually lied about Bill Clinton, and tried to frame his attacks on the media as racism. Unbelievable.
Even though Obama won, all they talked about were "the Clintons." What does that tell you?
Olbermann has truly become unwatchable-- and his contant attacks and ridicule of young, attractive women is unbearable. They've all got big problems over there.
Before Hillary spoke in Tennessee tonight, Olbermann etc. spent several minutes berating her because she "didnt have any plans to make a formal concession"- this was "against the rules" but "the Clintons dont follow the rules" sneered the "nonpartisan panel of experts." "Can you blame her, she can't really follow Obama's speech" one of them snickered.
Joe Scarborough: "yeah, its like Herman's Hermits following the Beatles."
"She's going to pretend it didn't happen....Keith, how many delegates does the state of denial have?" smirked Howard Fineman.
Then they cut to Hillary's speech. Less than a minute in, Hillary congratulated Obama. Then she continued her speech.
Big mistake, I guess, because Olbermann then came on with "clearly that one mention is all we are going to hear about South Carolina tonight..." and he and Fineman and the rest of the "experts" went right back to slamming Hillary's "lack of class," exactly as if she had said NOTHING. Apparently, Hillary was supposed to devote her entire speech to lavishing praise on Obama and begging his forgiveness for daring to oppose him in a primary.
Give it a rest, people. We are on to you, and we've had enough. If you aren't actually cashing checks from the Obama campaign, you are cheating yourselves, because he would pay for this kind of assistance if he had to.
So right J...
There's a great sickness in our corporate media. It's sad to see Keith involved in this American disgrace.
I
Jamele, on the West Coast they didn't show her speech for almost ten minutes. And Olbermann was being dishonest-- no one "concedes" over a primary election. It hasn't happened yet--it was a phony charge.
O, the hatred of these people. Bob Somerby is right about all of them. Jack Welch's Lost Boys.
Said Bill Clinton today in Columbia, SC: “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in ‘84 and ‘88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here.”
This was in response to a question about Obama saying it “took two people to beat him.” Jackson had not been mentioned.
Yeah Bill I'm sure going to run out and support your wife, NOT!
Keith Olbermann is rapidly losing me as a viewer- he's as disgustingly Anti-Hillary as anyone on the air. For Christ's sake, if these people could just get over their hatred of the Clintons and just REPORT THE FACTS we would be so much better off. This nonstop Hillary-bashing is just so, so old- if I wanted to see this, I'd watch Fox.
They are practically orgasmic over there at MSNBC tonight over Obama's big win in South Carolina, compared to the morgue-like atmosphere on nights when Hillary wins (of course, she only wins because she cries, or because of voter fraud or mob ties.) It's so transparent it's ludicrous.
- jjamele2880 /
Without a doubt, this is my exact sentiments concerning Kieth Olbermann. I use to idolize this man. It funny how in one show this all turned around because anyone willing to pull the bias card out as MSNBC has will never get my support.
These people create issues where there are clearly none there. What Craig Crawford did today was remarkable, and you will never see it on MSNBC highlights. Did you see how Joe S. tried to make it seem like Crawford was being an extremist who would not let others speak in turn? I like especially how this the argument started over something that was suppose to be racial. Their example of racial was the mere mention of the word race. They were so caught in the act of exaggeration .
Joseph
Scarborough did the same thing to Pat Buchanan tonight, too-- wouldn't let him speak, and Pat was the only one who was making any sense-- He wouldn't buy into the Obama-mania.
Joseph, Keith Olbermann did the same thing in L.A. when he was a sportscaster here. He started off big and popular, then got full of himself and arrogant. He was gone in a few years. He got reckless.
None of these guys are very well educated, either. And face it-- they're all Plutocrats who don't have much at stake. They also suffer from the "my hip Black friend' syndrome-- little White guys who feel good about backing a minority candidate.
Ah, where is Sue when we need her? Is she on vacation? I would have expected her to weigh in at this point on the anti-Olbermann sentiment with something like: "See, all you Olbermann junkies, I told you so!" (:>)
The closest they could come was Congressman Clyburn's assertion that Clinton was "using code" -- but Clyburn was never asked what Clinton supposedly said and what it was supposedly code for.
Later they took Bill Clinton's remark about Jesse Jackson's having won South Carolina 1988 -- which was clearly meant to mean that a Democrat had won there and didn't win the nomination (Dukakis did) -- but the MSNBC LIARS intentionally took it as some kind of racist remark because Jackson happens to be black.
It was ridiculous -- it makes NO SENSE as a "rascist remark" -- it was clearly just meant to mean, hey, winning here isn't winning the nomination. He couldn't use 1992 as an example because he himself won, thumpingly, in South Carolina in '92, and went on to be the nominee. SC was uncontested in 1996, Gore won in 2000 and went on to be the nominee, and in 2004 it was Edwards, who he's certainly not going to mention as an example because he's running against Hillary now.
Watching the MSNBC hacks spin it all night was very hard to take; it gave me the creeps to realize they think so little of people and so highly of themselves that they believe they can just make something up whole-cloth and make it true by acclamation. It was creepy.
Go check out any comment thread on Huffingtonpost.com. The Obama worshippers are eating this stuff up. A lot of them aren't interested in the media being unbiased at the moment, because the media is biased toward their candidate. But if Obama becomes the nominee against John McCain, they'll be dismayed to find that their former supporters in the media have turned against them to support the War Hero Who Can't Comb His Own Hair- and I for one will just shake my head when they scream bloody murder at the "biased" media.
What goes around, comes around.
Even now their website is covered in stories about "race" in the race. Story after story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22860695#22859476
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22860695#22856076
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22860695#22855171
Then their wrap-up after the vote is focused squarely on race -- even though the numbers themselves don't show a race advantage to Clinton at all:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22860695#22867625
A more classic case of the self-fulfilling prophesy I've never seen. Someone pretty high up at NBC has obviously put the word out: MSNBC exists at this point solely to stop Hillary Clinton. Clearly their efforts backfired in New Hampshire; let's see what happens moving forward. It's pretty hard to counter a message that's being so ubiquitously pushed; it's slowly becoming conventional wisdom, and taking on a life of its own.
<< Clinton wants to be Reagan. He wants to be Kennedy. He wants to be FDR. And if Obama beats him, he's not any of that. He's Nixon. He's LBJ. He's no longer part of the solution. He's part of the problem. That's what got the Clintons upset.>>
Bill Clinton is not at risk of being beaten by Obama. Obama can't beat him, because he's not running. He's campaigning for Hillary Clinton, who is running for President. He's endorsing her, and campaigning for her, just as another former President, HW Bush, endorsed and campaigned for his son when he was running for President.
Also, it's not Clinton's former administration who is missing pertinent emails, now is it? It's not Clinton who refused to turn over records of White House visitors, is it? The parallel between the Nixon administration and the Bush administration is far better an analogy than with Clinton's.
The clintons are turning over nothing related to Hillary. Something was surreptiously released a couple of weeks ago, but the mm ignored it. It dealt with Jay Rockefeller telling Hillary how the mm was ready to savage anybody who opposed her healthcare plan, and the mm was simply awaiting marching orders.
of course,, the mm wouldn't want to highlight the fact that they are just tools for the lefties.
Oh you are just too hysterical for words. Funny, the MM never did seem to get that memo to trash anyone who opposed Hillary's health care plan, did it?
How do you manage to type with all that crap oozing out of the place your brain is supposed to be?
He's endorsing her, and campaigning for her, just as another former President, HW Bush, endorsed and campaigned for his son when he was running for President.
The difference is former President Bush NEVER attacked his son's opponent and fellow Republican. Bill can't say the same.
Yah I see potential foot injury for the Dems. With alot of media help.
The thing is, the numbers. Without any media help, the number of politically motivated democratic citizens getting involved this year is a great thing.
Obama's numbers (and a great showing in S.C. any way you look at it.) are somewhere arround two times the numbers for the top two GOP candidates. Can this enthusiasm be shut down, discouraged, nullified, to help hand the WH to another Republican?
As much as anything, this will be the corporate media mandate into november.
We owe Craig Crawford our gratitude. The bias with which the Clintons have been treated is widespread at CNN and some of the major networks, as well as at MSNBC, although a little less blatant.
My amateur analysis tells me that the "pundits" are primarily people who were part of the media mob during the Monica Lewinsky days. They came to work every day and threw themselves with gusto into that ghastly effort to take Clinton down. After the fact, I think a lot of them looked in the mirror and didn't like what they saw. They've been trying to forget it. Hillary's candidacy, with Bill campaigning for her, reminds them (and us) of all they want to forget. They are searching wildly for reasons to be negative about Hillary and her potential presidency.
They have turned me into a Hillary supporter.
SInce I don't have a candidate in this race, let me state that as a Canadian, the bias against the Clintons is astounding. I have written CNN so many times now to at least show its world viewers some sort of modicum of fairness yet to no avail. The media and Obama campaign made this about race, not the Clintons. They haven't said one thing that could be claimed as racist. I also complained as to which talking heads they had banned at CNN that were Obama supporters since they have banned Begalla Carville and Zimmerman. The worst to me is Roland Martin who uses his race to support Obama and demonize the Clintons every chance he gets. I totally agree with this man's comments. The slant towards Obama is so one sided it is laughable. I also love the fact that they have made it about race and then seem so surprised that the race in SC was so one sided in favour of Obama as if they weren't hoping for those results. It just fed into the self prophesy they had been claiming all week. I was so sick of this I didn't even watch any of my regular Sunday talk shows this morning. My stomach couldn't take any more of the media patting themselves on the back for what a good job they had done.
Is there something about being a balck candidate that disqualifies everyone at l0ooking at your platform or what actions you have taken? Do you get an automatic pass on the road to the WH because of the race? Is it some bias that it is better to suport a black man than a woman? Is it okay to overlook race but not gender? Just wondering?
Re: your second paragraph:
Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes. You are not allowed to challenge St. Barack's platform, or you'll be accused of playing the race card. You can't talk about his lack of experience, either: same thing. Yes, you get a pass if you are a black man running for President, but ONLY if you are running against Hillary Clinton. Yes, it's ok to vote for Obama because he's black but it is NOT ok to vote for Hillary because she's a woman, because if you do, you are a racist.
Oh and voting for Obama means voting for Hope, if you vote for Clinton you are against Hope.
Every once in a while they make a snarky remark to the effect that the Clinton campaign brought this on themselves by being unfriendly or inaccessible to the media, but, please -- is there any doubt WHY the Clintons would avoid the media? It's obvious the kind of treatment they'd get. If they thought they'd get anything good from it of course they'd talk to the media. They know better.
I don’t think there’s any valid disagreement to Crawford’s comments, so axiomatic are they. No matter what Hilary does, she’s going to be pilloried by the mainstream media and, of course, the right-wing propaganda infrastructure. It’s really ridiculous because here’s this generally decent woman depicted as a murderer and as the worst kind of Machiavellian manipulator and as just the personification of pure evil. Like that charming SC lady who asked McCain how Hilary, referring to her as a word that rhymes with “witch,” can be beaten. When you stand Hilary next to her detractors, such as this conservative goon who asked McCain that question, she comes off as a paragon of virtue. Hilary’s long experience with the right-wing attack machine gives her a unique qualification that no other democratic candidate possesses; experience with the utter paucity of decency that is sure to be unleashed on the eventual democratic candidate. And Hilary is a woman and certain generalizations ring true like, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.” For 8 long years Hilary was forced to watch as her family was savaged by the right wing attack machine (RE Limbaugh’s comments about a White House Dog). And Hilary has NOT forgotten. And if she becomes President, she is going to have a powerful taste for vengeance, and she is going to be in position for some payback. The payback may take the form of reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, one of the things for which the Morning in America guy is currently screaming in Hell. But I think there will be payback to those who savaged her family. And if Hilary chooses to take that road, I personally will be there to cheer her every step of the way. These vicious attack dogs of the right must be held accountable and Hilary is just the man for the job.
Craig Crawford is the only sane voice heard on MSNBC/NBC. Fair and balanced coverage does not exist there, except for Crawford. I wonder how much longer he'll be asked to contribute commentary? He's outnumbered, and yes, the others apparently do suffer from mental illness. Even Olbermann's a bit too gleeful when his buddies start bashing Hillary, so he's no longer credible. MSNBC/NBC competes with Fox to distort and to advance an agenda of hate and influence peddling to defeat Hillary and skewer Bill. When Bill Clinton states that Obama is a young eloquent leader, the pundits slam him for being a racist! "Eloquent" is supposed to be a racist code word? That kind of insanity with the ubiquitous and deplorable sexism on MSNBC is inexcusable. The egos and Mika have free reign. Where's the outrage when MSNBC allows the vitriolic Carlson, Scarborough, Matthews, et al, to demean all women and specifically, Senator Clinton with blatant sexist remarks? Our young sons and daughters interested in politics and the election watch these pundits slam women on a regular basis. Matthews, Scarborough, and Carlson's own children must be watching. What do they think about their fathers talking about Senator Clinton with such animosity and disrespect? What do their wives think about their behavior? Where's the outrage when Tucker Carlson told viewers his horrendous comment about doing "you-know-what" to Hillary because she's, supposedly, "uptight" and "looks as if she needs it". He's talking about a U.S. senator; he's talking about Chelsea's mom! Where's the outrage when MSNBC's pompous misogynists tell the viewers that they're worried Hillary might castrate them? And this is called political commentary? No cable executives reprimand them, ask them to clean it up, to get back to the campaign news. But "eloquent" gets blasted on a seven-day news cycle. Call someone eloquent and you're accused of racism, but call a U.S. Senator, a woman and a mom, a she-devil, witchy, etc. and there's silence on the cable stations, on the networks, and in print news! The only balance and truth in print is found on Media Matters and PBS. The only balance on MSNBC comes from astute guests, like Crawford, who has credibility and integrity. Thank you, Craig Crawford, for speaking out. The media bias against the Clintons threatens a fair election. I applaud Crawford for standing up against this bias. I proudly applaud him.