The Media's Clinton Derangement Syndrome

Via Taylor Marsh, Media Matters has Craig Crawford's terrific appearance on MSNBC this morning:
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 nave 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.
Amen Craig. Amen.

< The Trouble With Bill | Some Early SC Exit Polling >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    There was a movie long ago (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by athyrio on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:15:11 PM EST
    Where the star cowboy walked into a bar and punched this bad guy and said..."I can see there just ain't any point in trying to get along with you"....Thats what Hillary haters remind me of that scene where there just ain't no point in trying to discuss this rationally.......They just dont discuss, they preach....and there isnt any changing your mind....So I give up.....go ahead and coronate your Obama...Good luck....

    Btw, the video on the Media Matters link (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:26:37 PM EST
    is worth watching.  I had read this comment but finally went to the video, much as I sometimes can't stand Crawford's sometimes-breathless delivery.

    But the video!  Crawford's ever-expressive face as he first listens to Scribbleboro's prattling is just marvelous.  My thanks to the producer who had the sense to switch cameras off the anchors at that moment.  If you haven't seen it yet, click above to Media Matters and just enjoy. . . .

    I could not agree with him more.... (none / 0) (#1)
    by athyrio on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:23:14 PM EST
    he is one of my favorite commentators....Lets make this race about real issues and not just coronate Obama as the 2nd coming....

    Killary's Coup (none / 0) (#2)
    by KathleenKlean4TenYears on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:48:04 PM EST
    Did the Times endorsement really surprise anyone? They started the Iraq war with Miller's "reporting," and now they've chosen a candidare who's pledged to finish it on Israel's terms (and the Hunt Oil Company's). Nice one, bourgeois left. Hope you've got armaments stockpiled in those Upper West brownstones, cause the army's just about broke.

    an alternate perspective (none / 0) (#3)
    by noodles on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:53:01 PM EST
    I see it the other way. The Clintons have been elevated by some Democrats to a version of Reagan (a cult-like hero about whom nothing bad may be spoken).

    Many people prefer Obama/Edwards over Clinton because they will remove the unfair Social Security cap and Obama/Edwards have also stated that they will get rid of DOMA. Additionally, neither Obama or Edwards are saddled with the Clinton's anti-progressive legislative history. For example, it was Clinton who signed into law a Federal prohibition regarding recognition of same-sex marriage, expanded the Federal death penalty to 60 additional offenses, limited Judges from granting Habeas Corpus relief, and authorized Extraordinary Rendition (the kidnapping and transport of persons to foreign countries to be tortured).

    Nonresponsive (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:59:00 PM EST
    Is it impossible for some folks to address the topic of a post?

    Right (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jgarza on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:01:48 PM EST
    that is why she got the NY Times endorsement, the Media just hates her.  An 8 year pity party, I can hardly wait.

    Craig Crawford, if you listen to his commentary, is a Clinton supporter, he has never uttered even the slightest bit of negativity toward there campaign.  So surprise Taylor Marsh thinks he is "fair".

    Amazing (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:15:13 PM EST
    The NYTimes Ed Board ripped Bush for years as well.

    And the Right Wing said that proved Liberal bias.

    Are you really that out of touch?


    thats silly (none / 0) (#7)
    by athyrio on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:05:39 PM EST
    BTD thinks it is fair remark too and he isnt a Hillary supporter...

    Are you aware (none / 0) (#6)
    by kid oakland on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:05:36 PM EST
    when you cite Taylor Marsh as a source, that, as of 3PM PST, Taylor Marsh had recommended this diary on MyDD?

    Is left blogging a "consequence free zone?" Where you can recommend a patently offensive and trasparently vile diary one minute and be cited as a source on TalkLeft the next?

    Steve M
    Taylor Marsh
    world dictator
    dem dem
    Undies Sided
    Uncle Wiggly
    Cole Younger

    Please do not bring (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:14:11 PM EST
    your spats to this SITE.

    I will go curse you out at MYDD.

    Talk Left is not the place for this.


    If you cite Taylor Marsh (none / 0) (#19)
    by kid oakland on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:33:36 PM EST
    you cite Taylor Marsh.

    That's not a spat, that's just a fact.


    This is the most absurd thing (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:53:22 PM EST
    Is Shunning now the accepted practice of the Left bogs?

    Whether you think Taylor Marsh is vile, and more accurately here, whether or not Taylor Marsh recommends a "vile diary" on Mydd is not relevant to what Craig Crawford said and whether his observation is true. I gather you have no intelligent argument on the subject.

    I've got a fairly low Dailykos userid, I've been around awhile, I've read and admired a lot of your work and ideas. This one is one I expect you will hope others forget.

    BTW are you now going to shun Jerome Armstrong and Mydd, because they didn't promptly remove the offensive diary?


    No, with respect (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by kid oakland on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 06:45:53 PM EST
    I just had a reaction when I saw that Taylor Marsh had recommended that diary. Obviously, you are correct, BTD is only citing TM citing Craig Crawford and so this is a side issue that is way off topic.

    I apologize for that and won't make a habit of it.

    It was just a visceral reaction for me...since I know that I've seen Taylor Marsh cited here before...and that diary was just so wrong in so many ways.

    It just really flummoxed me that here's this person who is cited  here...who also supports this kind of rhetoric.


    I don't read Taylor Marsh's blog (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:01:35 PM EST
    so I have no comment on her abilities. I will say I haven't been overly impressed with what I have seen on mydd by her.

    I gather she is a strong Clinton partisan. I give her as much cred as a strong Obama partisan or a strong Edwards partisan. I look for something to show me you can see your own candidate's warts.

    BTD looks for a candidates' warts. He dumped Dodd rather publicly due to Dodd's warts as BTD saw them. I give BTD more cred, but recognize he is the blogging equivalent of Cuban coffee.  


    Example, just a little while ago: Soledad O'Brien (none / 0) (#8)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:07:29 PM EST
    referred to Clinton's "breakdown and crying."

    Never heard her reference Romney's actual tears, many times.  Nor calling it a "breakdown."

    I find O'Briend just not, y'know, likeable enough and nominate her as first for Crawford's "intervention."  (I love that line of his.)

    And now, she gives exit poll results (none / 0) (#10)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:09:40 PM EST
    on the question asked of AAs in SC, "Were the Clintons unfair?"

    I didn't see results on a similar question about Obama, which would be requisite for poll validity.


    56% (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:13:23 PM EST
    Thanks -- missed it then (none / 0) (#16)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:23:51 PM EST
    probably because I was throwing things at the tv.

    CONFUSED (none / 0) (#9)
    by noodles on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:09:28 PM EST
    I thought the topic was "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" and my post was an attempt to point out that - from my perspective - that Obama/Edwards supporters have specific factual issues (a few of which I listed) rather than being deranged and I also pointed out that - from my perspective - that the derangement is on the part of those who have elevated the Clintons to idols to be adored and who get angry when facts such as DOMA, Rendition, etc. are pointed out.

    The Media's CDS' (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:12:56 PM EST
    Do not play dumb please.

    I think all candidate partisans need to look long (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 06:03:50 PM EST
    and hard in the mirror. The majority of the candidate diaries on Mydd were variations on my candidate is the second coming, yours sucks. This is true of Edwards supporters, Clinton supporters and Obama supporters. I stopped reading them, maybe they have gotten better, who knows. 99% of the time I was disappointed I read them.

    Any Obama supporter who thinks Clinton supporters have illusions that their candidate can do no wrong needs to look at some of their fellow Obamaistas. Obama, at least doesn't whine when punched in a political argument. Would his supporters learn from him.

    I've said it a number of times, it isn't going to matter who wins the nomination if we don't elect more and better Democrats to congress. Nothing will change. This is true whether Edwards, Obama or Clinton leads the ticket.

    The biggest reason President Clinton governed like he did was the blue dogs. You want a more progressive Democratic candidate, give the candidate  more progressive congress.


    ugh.. roland martin (none / 0) (#17)
    by sammiemorris on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:25:40 PM EST
    just accused the clintons of employing the southern strategy. No mention of Jesse Jackson Jr
    s Katrina Tears remarks.