Now they Hate "Experience?" No, They Hate the Clintons

Jamison Foser writes a good piece on how the Media now hates "experience" when they hated "change" in 1993. Foser links to Eric Boehlert's piece that explains it:

That's the point we've been making for the last week as we've watched MoDo and Chris Matthews and David Broder and the rest of the Village elders raise a stink about Clinton joining the Obama administration. And our point is this: The press represents nobody but the press on this topic. Meaning, the press has no political cover on this story because there's no partisan angle to the SoS story, which means their long-running Clinton hatred is just sort of out there, exposed for all to see.

Think about. It's been virtually impossible to find any senior members of Congress--Republican or Democrat--who publicly oppose Clinton as the SoS, which in and of itself is rather astonishing. . . . So, if you're keeping score at home, that means the Obama White House is in favor of Clinton, Republicans in Congress are in favor, Democrats in Congress are in favor, and liberal activists are, essentially, in favor. (And so are most Americans.) So we go back to our original point. Who was [Joe] Scarborough talking about when he kept referring to these detractors who Hitchens represented. Who were these SoS "critics"? Answer: Scarborough was talking about the Beltway press corps. And if the Beltway press corps thinks Clinton should not be SOS, then that's big news.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Saturday Open Thread | Valentine's Windows Are Safe Again >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Most excellent piece (5.00 / 11) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 11:19:41 AM EST
    This proves to me, that so many "progressives"  have a limited internal thermometer when it comes to MSM and pundits, or maybe a short memory.  

    I loved Foser's point on who would have been ok:  

    So the only way Obama can escape criticism is if he hires a bunch of people who worked in the Reagan and Bush administrations. Perversely, after two straight elections in which the American people convincingly rejected failed Republican rule, the punditocracy would be less likely to criticize Obama for abandoning his promise of change if he retained the services of the very Bush administration officials who screwed up the country so badly in the first place.

    With respect to Boehlert, who said:

    The press represents nobody but the press on this topic. Meaning, the press has no political cover on this story because there's no partisan angle to the SoS story [and CDS]...

    He's right, insofar as the press isn't currently taking their talking points directly from the GOP. However, I trust that Boehlert isn't suggesting that we have a free press, acting autonomously, without regard to any third party interests.

    Boehlert knows, as we all do: the press is entirely beholden to corporate interests. That was true before, during, and after this election.

    Imo, the press adulation of Obama in '08 was no more of their own doing than their adulation of Bush in 2000-08. I can't help but be deeply suspicious of anything, or anybody, held in overly high esteem by corporate media.


    More to the point ... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 04:53:16 PM EST

    Reflective of both their own particular corporate interests and corporate interests in general.

    Yes (5.00 / 9) (#2)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 11:35:54 AM EST
    Myopic press stirring up interest in their stories is about all it amounts to.

    I remember reading this story that describes how Hillary was seen in the senate:

    Collegial and quietly diligent, Clinton could be counted on to exhaustively work a bill through and cultivate support from both parties, according to numerous senators and aides interviewed by the Globe.

    The polarizing meme was a fiction generated by the press and swallowed whole by hungry readers looking for excitement.

    The Pundit boys....and yes that (5.00 / 11) (#19)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    should include some of the gals who feel compelled to prove they have cajones as big as the guys when it comes to CDS, remind me of middle schoolers....especially the crew at MSNBC.  Hillary is the smartest one in the group and they HATE that.  They call her names, they trash her, they try to get all the cool kids to trash and STILL she goes on....
    getting better grades (reaction in the public) than she does.

    My biggest disappointment is Maddow.  She too, seems to think she has to play along to get along.  She had  on the other day, Tipping Point author Malcom Gladwell, and allowed him to discuss the positives of  blending experience and change and said he thought Hillary as SoS was a positive choice.
    Afterward she says nothing....no discussion of "perhaps there is a different way to look at things when it comes to Hillary".  Instead she was back to the same old "whining" about how evil Hillary is a warmongering hawk so how can Obama have her there?  No those were not her words, but it is the message of MSNBC.  I guess I should give kudos to Maddow for NOT having Hitchens on (the rest of MSNBC was salivating over his lies and inuendo).

    Seriously, how does the MSM CDS, on MSNBC especially, get ignored?   Why aren't these middle school mentality folks taken to task?


    Sooooo Glad (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    I have no teevee.

    STOP watching them! (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 01:14:59 PM EST
    Just stop.

    I cut WAY back on the TV pundits in January (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 01:18:17 PM EST
    and I frankly haven't missed them one bit.

    Me neither ... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 05:05:59 PM EST
    I especially don't miss the hysteria of the MSM.  Everything is SO important. Except stuff that really is.

    Where was the press on the pending economic crisis over the last few years?

    It was there for any smart reporter to see.

    Ditto WMDs a few years before that.

    They are always absent when it really matters.

    There are a few good reporters out there.  And even a couple of decent pundits.  But they are lone voices in the wilderness and few and far between.

    But the pundit class makes an excellent reverse barometer.  If they think something is true, it probably isn't.  And I'm just being nice by using the word "probably."


    Strangely, a relative (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 12:14:13 AM EST
    who has been a regular FoxNews watcher -- although the relative is a librul -- tipped me off some time ago to its far better business reporting than other channels.  So I would wander over to Fox to catch those reports, and there has been a lot there for some time about the coming economic problems.

    It just takes vigilance to click away before some of the crazies come on there.  On the other hand, it can be very educational these days to catch the conservative take on what the libruls are planning to do in taking over the country.:-)


    MSNBC puts the D in CDS (none / 0) (#76)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 06:34:36 AM EST
    I stopped watching them in the spring - best TV related move I ever made.

    Well, with the possible exception of my "The Wire" marathon this summer....


    I Personally (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by zvs888 on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 11:45:31 AM EST
    Am very happy to see her take SoS and Richardson relegated to Commerce.  To me Hillary at SoS is preferable to her in the Senate with Richardson at State.

    There's way too much important global diplomacy to be done over the next 8 years to leave it to that even if we lose her services in the Senate.

    Also (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by zvs888 on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 11:49:29 AM EST
    I get it that the Press is trying to stir up some drama where there is essentially no actual political drama.

    It's sad that the only stories running this week was Palin sideshow and manufactured Clinton drama.

    Basically just goes to show that the MSM has nothing to report so they're making all these stories that basically don't exist.

    I mean seriously, I watched Matthews this week; he and his guests (more his guests than him) were trying to drive this ridiculous story that she's going to go all cavalier and pursue her own diplomacy with her own government run out of State.

    Hillary is a leader, but she's also a team player.  Look at her work the last 8 years in the Senate.  She hasn't railroaded anything or tried to run the place; she's been a leader working as a junior Senator.  But of course, instead of focusing on what she's actually done, they focus on the ridiculous primary drama which ended in June because there's no actual story here.


    Maddow (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 11:52:25 AM EST
    was not far behind.  Replaying clips of Hillary calling out Obama as inexperienced and smirking the entire time.  These people on the alleged "left" use the same techniques to stir $hit up like the right wing.  Create controversy and drama.  

    Maddow may be to the left of many pundits but... (none / 0) (#51)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 04:38:16 PM EST
    she's still part of the MCM machine. She can't, and won't, stray too far off the corporatist script.

    They are insane. (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by rooge04 on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 11:59:20 AM EST
    The press acts as though Hillary is willing to commit TREASON in pursuit of her ambition.

    I do not understand where they get these insane ideas from. Because they are truly demented.  I mean, do we not realize the level of insanity one needs to turn her into someone that would not take direction from her President in order to what? BE PRESIDENT?? You can't even make sense of it it's so insane.

    The press is off the rails with Clinton hate.  Only now everyone else is starting to notice.


    But Mrs. Clinton is not suited (5.00 / 9) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 12:38:38 PM EST
    for Secretary of State because she is a leader, said a panelist on one of those run-together  (Chris,David, Keith/Schuster, Rachel)MSNBC programs, as her head exploded in HD.   What is needed, she continued, is a follower.  This woman, Michelle (sorry never catch her last name) now admits that Mrs. Clinton is smart, experienced and a gifted leader, but these are, of course, clear cut drawbacks. Guess we are to have one president at a time, and, accordingly to her thinking, only one with leadership qualities at a time, as well.

    Her name is (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 05:42:07 PM EST
    "Michelle Bernard" and she is the president of the "Independent Women's Forum."  She strikes me as a neocon not quite comfortable with the right wing views she has.  She only came around to supporting Obama when it was clear he was going to win.

    But she has a permanent guest spot with MSNBC.....imo, because of her CDS.


    Michelle Bernard (none / 0) (#52)
    by DFLer on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 04:38:52 PM EST
    She who has warned us that Sen Clinton would run a "parallel government" as SoS. Yikes!

    More on the leader/follower thang on Daily Howler


    AS IF Obama is going to Let Hillary (none / 0) (#75)
    by BrassTacks on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 02:22:36 AM EST
    Set his agenda at State.  No way.  He'll be in charge.

    What the heck is wrong with Mathews and Maddow?  They can only love one person, and that person is their diety, Obama?  They shall place no other Gods before him?  Or even near him?  


    Sad, sad, sad. (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by rooge04 on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 11:50:53 AM EST
    The press is just exposing themselves for the idiots they truly are.

    e need more stories like this one and declaining (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by feet on earth on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 12:05:16 PM EST
    viewers and readers of the CDS infected media.

    Until their readership and audiences screem enough already with money and remote tv zapper, the melodrama will continue.  

    The media should be discussing (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 12:13:59 PM EST
    Gates's advocacy for more NATO troops in Afghanistan and his call for billions of dollars to increase Afghan army.  If Obama admin. taps Gates to continue as Sec'y of Defense, is Obama in agreement with Gates on Afghanistan?  Probably, per the last debate.

    escalation (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Salo on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 12:54:56 PM EST
    will not be talked about

    Yes, because that is a real story (none / 0) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 07:36:40 PM EST
    that might not have a happy ending and we are in happy change mode right now with a tanking economy.  Don't be shaking that up with an escalating war.

    This was my # 1 qualm about Obama, (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 12:56:44 PM EST
    with health care a close second.
    I don't know what the right policy in Afghanistan is, but I worry that more troops will simply create another Iraq, rather than stabilizing the region.
    Plus, you've got to think that our rivals will back the Taliban, to drain our resources.

    the sale... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Salo on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 01:03:32 PM EST
    of an escalated afghan conflict, is obama's brief, given to him by his handlers. He's literally the only political persona capable of selling another four years of war and the thousand or so kia that will be produced in the new deployments.

    Is yours a marxist analysis? (none / 0) (#23)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 01:09:00 PM EST
    Why more war?
    Did you happen to read Monbiot's article from around 2003 (before the war) where he said that the Iraq war was required by capitalism to open up new markets.
    I"d say events proved him at least 50% right---remember what Bremer thought was his greatest achievement in Iraq.

    Why more war? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Salo on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 02:00:50 PM EST
    I don't really think the underlying causes of the recent wars are finished with. If the predictions about a new great depression and general US decline are true we will also see an international scene similar to Japan and Italy's empire building in the 1930s: Incidents like the Marco Polo bridge, Mukden, Ethiopia might start happening...Also heavy rearmament in Russia and China is to be expected. Both nations have a budget surplus, plenty of raw resources and the expertise to build modern equipment.

    The US is policing a Pax Americana that is under increasing economic strain coupled with  an alliance like NATO which is not particularly interested in enforcing the peace under American authority. The US public appears to have voted for an antiwar stance but will probably be beleaguered   continuously with new bush wars.


    My conspiracy theory (none / 0) (#77)
    by Fabian on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 06:54:26 AM EST
    America slugs it out in Afghanistan while Putin buys as much "support" and intelligence as he can on the Taliban.  America pulls out, Putin stages a hugely bloody coup on the Taliban and walks into Afghanistan.  The world roars in impotent outrage and Putin paints himself as a hero.  

    The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan should be a lesson for the ages.


    As conspiracy theories go ... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 07:44:11 AM EST
    that one's quite believable.

    Why thank you. (none / 0) (#80)
    by Fabian on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 12:55:08 PM EST
    Putin is ruthless and opportunistic and brilliant.  He'd take Afghanistan if he could only figure out how to do it quickly and effectively.  If not, let the United States and the United Nations deal with it.

    It is what all of America should be talking about. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 07:42:27 PM EST
    Is this something that the people want to spend their time, money, and volunteer military lives on?  I can already tell you that the military is all for this, nobody is going to whine about going to Afghanistan.  If they attempt to send my husband to Iraq again he is turning in his retirement paperwork which he can do at any time he wants to now.  It is already understood in this household though that if they ask him to go to Afghanistan he's going.  I don't have a strong opinion about it one way or the other but I would like to know what America wants.  Nobody is telling her though and by the time she gets the memo we will be beyond stopping the gears of war no matter what the democracy wants.

    Primary hangover (5.00 / 9) (#10)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 12:37:05 PM EST
    The media seems not to realize that Obama railed against Clinton and the status quo she supposedly represented as a political tactic to win the primary, not because he actually believed it or intended to act on it. Many of his supporters didn't seem to realize it was bs either. So I partly feel like, although the hand-wringing is ridiculous, he's kind of reaping what he sowed.

    Primary hangover? No way. (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by rooge04 on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 12:45:25 PM EST
    They've been like this regarding Hillary since they first knew her name. For at least 16 years now.

    Since Bill choose his wife to lead (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 04:01:57 PM EST
    the health care battle. That is when HRC got the target on the back. But sometimes it backfires on the press. With the wall to wall coverage they gave to the impeachment, Bill's popularity rose and rose and rose. Maybe that is what makes the media so mad. They have not been able to turn all the people against her. In fact, if you look at the primaries, they had her roasted with a fork in her right from the beginning. She kicked out of it right down to the wire. (p) The media should be happy that they will have her as the SoS. They will be able to follow her everywhere around the world and be able to fill their news,heh,hours.  

    Excellent point here:
    Maybe that is what makes the media so mad. They have not been able to turn all the people against her [or Bill].

    Everybody who doesn't have CDS has pondered the question of why the media has such an irrational, spiteful hate-on for the Clintons.

    Think about it: the press is in the business of influencing public opinion. However, the harder the press rails on the Clintons the more popular the Clintons become with the public. Obviously, that is truly infuriating for the corporate press corps.


    Right, Obama was willing to (none / 0) (#15)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 12:51:10 PM EST
    "say anything" to win.
    And that may be what it took for him to win.
    I prefer a winner to a gentleman loser.

    Did I say that? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 01:27:45 PM EST
    I didn't say he was willing to say anything. I said he was tactical in how he talked about all things Clinton, and the tactic was apparently believed by some to be genuine.

    You didn't say it- I did. (none / 0) (#31)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 01:36:30 PM EST
    Obama's tough and ruthless.

    Birds of a feather? (none / 0) (#41)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 02:04:17 PM EST
    'cause, gee...I thought Hillary was the one who was tough and ruthless...

    Any good pol is (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 02:19:46 PM EST
    Yup...pretty much. (none / 0) (#43)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 03:11:41 PM EST
    Some gal on CNN last night was talking about how (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Angel on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 12:38:04 PM EST
    Hillary was just a Junior Senator and that she wouldn't have a leadership role in the Senate if she stayed there, so she just had to go to State because life would be so crappy for her in the Senate.....yada yada yada.  Begela, John King and everyone else on the panel started laughing so hard when this was being said that they had to go to a commercial break. CDS alive and well.  

    'The Press' are individuals (5.00 / 13) (#14)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 12:47:47 PM EST
    with celebrity, power and a platform from which to shout...who, nevertheless, bond together by reinforcing one another's likes, dislikes, biases and prejudices.  

    They network, favoring one another in interviews and as 'guests' on their shows.  Herd mentality develops in the beltway and in NY.  It is personality driven, seldom involving any issues...only attitudes and behavior as interpreted by them...endlessly explaining 'the meaning' to the rest of us of everything that does (or doesn't) happen.

    BTD was right.  They favored Obama.  They got him and they are feeling powerful...but now what?  If they are not on the inside or do not have moles who agree with their biases, how to control him?  A rather delicate dance ensues attempting to criticize his choices without criticizing him directly.  It can't be done without revealing 'the game' and in this case, CDS.

    The thing we haven't really discussed is why.  Why the CDS?  What does this tell us about the Fourth Estate...the fourth branch of government?

    I'll start.

    Class war.  Not 'our sort.'  The Big Dog is an unclassy Arkansas hick from the wrong side of the tracks who 'got himself elected' and invaded the turf of the establishment.  What's even more resented is that he is a damn smart hick and miles ahead of most of them...worldwide...foibles and all.

    Envy, like greed, is an ugly thing.  Watching and hearing it 24/7 is wearing, not entertaining, although they are certainly entertaining one another.

    With a few exceptions.  Two good articles.  Thanks BTD.

    Wow, you nailed it with this.... (5.00 / 17) (#24)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 01:09:45 PM EST
    The Big Dog is an unclassy Arkansas hick from the wrong side of the tracks who 'got himself elected' a

    I remember all along back in the 90s thinking.....the media is filled with sanctimonious, snobby liars.  Despite all the spin about admiring those who "rise above their circumstances" the good old white boys club really resented Clinton.  They saw him as "white trash."  
    Broder, Matthews....all these guys.

    These are men who admired an alcoholic, ne'er do well, frat boy who abandoned his military post; covered for him; and openly trashed those who were trying to call W on his past.  Seriously, Rather has been pretty much blackballed by these guys; Matthews says on air "the only people who don't like W are whackos" and literally describes the dufus as having a "sunny nobility".  Yet he called Clinton, a successful president, "Al Gore's bathtub ring."

    Here's Bill, flawed to be sure, who rose above an alcoholic abusive stepfather, a poor family to become a Rhodes scholar, a governor and a president.  Matthews for all his anti war phoniness, somehow sees Bill daring to protest Vietnam as a bad thing.  But sees Bush avoiding serving as worthy of cover up?

    I would love for the likes of Broder, Matthews, and friends to be called on their sanctimonious hypocrisy in a public arena.  George W had every advantage a human being could have: wealth, the best schools, jobs, and still needed his father's cronies to rescue him over and over and over.

    Broder, Matthews and all the rest have blood on their hands.  Their CDS was out of control and they were willing and able to cover for a dolt, pushed his presidency.  Now people have died, people have lost their homes, their jobs, everything and still these jerks want to blame the Clintons.


    pretty convenient i'd say. (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Salo on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 01:49:19 PM EST
    usurpation, bloodshed, looting and the media focus on something about personalities.

    Personally, I tend to think it's the same reason Leno never developed new material after Lewinsky. It's something easy they can point to to distract the public--A sex scandal is the mother-load for the agenda of press--while their masters pick your pockets.  


    Sally Quinn (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 06:35:04 PM EST
    of the Washington Post is another of the Village Royalty who hates the Clintons.

    Yesterday I saw her on some cable show clucking  unctuously about how Sidwell Friends is such a great a choice for Sasha and Malia.
    But what did Dame Sally say when the Clintons, those Arkansas parvenus, enrolled Chelsea in Sidwell Friends?  


    Is Matthews the gangleader? (none / 0) (#33)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 01:44:47 PM EST
    Hillary won't give him an interview, so sour grapes, I say.  

    The only one who can stop this is Obama, whom, I hope, when he announces her for SoS, will lay out all the positive reasons he wants her in his cabinet & at this particular post.  He alone might be able to put the vicious, negative chatter to bed.  We'll see.


    Hillary has given him an interview (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 03:45:51 PM EST
    She did an hour with him a while ago, after which he rather dramatically changed his tune about her.  He's still afflicted with CDS, but it alternates with quite genuine respect and liking.  Ya could say he's a teeny bit ambivalent.

    Matthews has not only CDS (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 04:19:14 PM EST
    he plays "hun, me??" and refuses to acknowledge his part in getting neocons control.
    He is a sanctimonious hypocrite.
    He's gets angry when people remind him of how he treated Gore.  He insists that Gore was running on "Clinton's bathtub ring". I heard him use that phrase over and over and over.
    I heard the man PRAISE W after the war ...so how the hell does he play "holier than thou" with Hillary's vote.  
    He joined the Peace Corps to avoid Vietnam and criticizes Bill Clinton for daring to protest the war.  
    Matthews drools over McCain who wanted to extend the war indefinitely and trashes Hillary for a vote to pressure Saddam into more inspectors.  Hillary's trust of W was naive and a mistake but dammit I am sick and tired of the MSNBC punditry claiming she is a hawk, wanted war.

    Matthews hates the Clintons pure and simple.
    He wants to run for office. If it is in PA, where he grew up it is my area. I hope I am back there by then, cause I will work against him.


    Your portrait (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 05:02:29 PM EST
    of Matthews is wildly over-exaggerated.  The man's a jerk and an ass, no doubt, but his personal views are far more complicated and frequently even contradictory than you apparently prefer to believe.

    Demonizing people who hold different views than you want them to isn't helpful to either understanding or dialogue.

    I happen to think that Matthews, on balance, is a terrible blight on the national political discourse, but not because he's full of rigid and unchanging personal likes and dislikes-- because he's simply not.  He's a childlike character whose feelings blow in the wind on the basis of usually very superficial things.

    He did, though, oppose the war from the beginning, and his opinion of Bush, whom he once thought was just wonderful, has soured deeply.  I never once have heard him "excoriate" Hillary for the AUMF vote, nor have I ever heard him take a "holier than thou" attitude towards anyone, but I haven't heard every minute of his every broadcast.  I never once heard him so much as criticize Hillary on the basis of her Iraq vote.  That's never been his beef with her.  His beef with her has pretty much been 100 percent personality-based, and much of it manufactured out of his own fevered imaginings-- ie, classic CDS.

    Matthews is the epitome of what's rotten about the state of our news media and punditry.


    I'm demonizing him (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 05:39:18 PM EST
    because I call him a sanctimonious hypocrite?

    Really?  That is how I see him.  Why do you feel the need to personally attack me because I believe,  have believed for years, that Matthews is a hypocrite?

    Are you a personal friend and have you spent hours of time with him? Because if you have you would certainly have the right to set me straight, to school me on how the television persona is just an act.
    I have watched Matthews sit and talk with Tom Delay and giggle and titter like an adolescent boy as they both trashed Hillary on a personal level with they thought the mics were off.
    I listened to Matthews drool over what a great guy McCain is, a hero, and all that when he KNEW the guy was pushing war....and yes, I have heard him describe Hillary as "hawkish".  

    Look you don't like my view, don't read them.
    I find Matthews to be a disgusting misogynistic jerk whose personal vendetta against the Clintons was immoral in my view. And nothing you say will change that.


    Thank you Jjc for saying it so well (none / 0) (#55)
    by mogal on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 04:53:40 PM EST
    Right, Clinton is the smartest politician (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 01:11:09 PM EST
    in decades (including Obama), and Hillary is probably in his league as well.
    It has to drive those idiots crazy.

    As someone famously once said, (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 01:27:48 PM EST
    "It's not a drive.  It's a putt."

    I disagree. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Salo on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 01:42:09 PM EST
    The Clinton's are a convenient sideshow to divert attention from  what is being done behind the big red curtain.

    So, you think (none / 0) (#37)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 02:00:11 PM EST
    it's just about ratings and revenue?

    I'll leave that to Somerby. (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by Salo on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 02:03:52 PM EST
    He suggested it was either pathological personal hatred for Clinton or ideological opposition dressed up as pathological hatred. That the mockery extended to Gore and Kerry in their turn suggests it was ideological opposition.

    Could be...or both... (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 05:50:34 PM EST
    or a mix and match.

    Bob is incomparable and insightful.


    Yes, it is class war and... (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 05:10:24 PM EST
    corporate media represents corporate interests; meaning the interests of the moneyed class.

    Ergo, the press will SAVAGE anybody who doesn't come from and/or serve the primary interests of that class.


    What they really hate is that Hillary is just like (5.00 / 13) (#16)
    by Angel on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 12:53:40 PM EST
    the Energizer Bunny....she just keeps on going no matter what.  I swear, they thought they had her in the primaries, thought she'd just go away in shame or something, but here she is up for SoS and they are like rabid dogs going after a bone.  They are stupid people and will never learn...their hatred has become such a part of themselves that they don't even recognize it.  

    the hubbhub... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Salo on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    about her allows the press to talk about stupid stuff. That's what the function of the madness happens to be. There's a war to sell in Afghanistan.

    No doubt. (5.00 / 12) (#28)
    by rooge04 on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 01:24:15 PM EST
    They absolutely detest that she just won't go away. They tried to embarrass her away. They tried to humiliate her away. They have tried for 20 years to insult her away. They've tried for 20 years to lie her away.  And none of it works. And that's what kills them the most.  And she does not. She perseveres. And everything they throw at her makes her stronger.  Oh, she's dead in the water after IA?  She showed you.  She was done after Super Tuesday? She showed you.   She couldn't get Americans to vote for her? She showed you the 18 million who did.

    And when you thought you'd ridden yourself of her completely--no VP spot for her!  She showed you. And Obama tapped her for an even better job--the face of America to the rest of the world.

    Obama knows her worth and so does most of the country and the world. It's only the American press corps that holds on to the CDS.   And they are all alone in it.


    "Most of the country" (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by mg7505 on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 01:51:36 PM EST
    does not know her worth. The Big Orange et al still don't know her worth, and refuse to acknowledge it. Bill Richardson did not know her worth. John Edwards did not know her worth.

    Agree for the most part except for Richardson (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by Angel on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 01:54:18 PM EST
    and Edwards.  They know her worth, it's why they hate her.  She's way more valuable than either of them.  

    John Edwards is reduced to channeling (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 02:01:19 PM EST
    his worth from before his political death.

    Sigh (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 03:49:51 PM EST
    They don't hate her, they were just running against her.

    Honestly, try to remember that politicians do not mirror the passions of their devoted supporters.  They're professionals, not 10-year-olds on a schoolyard.


    Well, at the very least Richardson showed no (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Angel on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 09:23:11 PM EST
    loyalty to the Clinton brand.  And I think he's a sexist pig; and I think he really, really disliked Hillary.  I think maybe he does hate her, especially now that she has State and he doesn't.  As far as Edwards is concerned, yes I think he does hate Hillary.  Edwards was mean to her during the debates and his body language spoke volumes.  I know we all see different things, but that's what I saw.  

    I think (none / 0) (#73)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 11:49:25 PM EST
    Richardson has no dislike of HRC, he just loves himself above all else.

    Edwards, definitely, does not "hate" Hillary.  That's just silly.

    You need to learn not to take campaign stuff quite so personally.  Politicians, and especially Hillary, don't.


    There's a difference? (none / 0) (#61)
    by BrianJ on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 05:32:25 PM EST
    The tactics are largely the same.  Sadly, so are the results.

    Yes, there's a difference (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 11:46:24 PM EST
    Obama's campaign promulgated the ugliest possible slurs, of racism and race-baiting, against both Clintons and numerous of their associates.  Yet see what's happened.

    They certainly do. (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by rooge04 on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 08:26:23 PM EST
    She showed that during the primaries. No matter how much the media said America hated her...she became more popular than ever.

    Another good long piece by Boehlert (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by DFLer on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 04:46:52 PM EST
    on Media Matters.....summary of the press and the Clinton administration

    Perhaps it's been linked to previously, but I did not see it on this thread. If so, regrets from the Department of Redundancy Department

    Is there really no middle ground? (2.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Garmonbozia on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 05:35:18 PM EST
    I mean, seriously...is it just completely outside the realm of possibility that someone might have some mild distaste for the Clintons (either or both, really) and not suffer from CDS?

    Seems like things are very black and white around here. (And for
    the ridiculously and hysterically oversensitive, of which there are more than a few in these parts...no, that was NOT racially-charged in any way. Shouldn't have to point that out, but I seem to remember a whole gang around here who think that the word "periodically" is blatant sexism.)

    People are allowed to not like Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by blogtopus on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 07:24:39 PM EST
    That's not what's in dispute. What is characteristic of CDS is the amount of reality-bending and pretzeling that happens to otherwise smart people (or maybe not) when it comes to the Clintons.

    I can dislike Hillary and not have CDS; I can't, however, say that she's not fit for public service, or is planning a shadow government, or anything else similarly ridiculous, without proving I have CDS.

    See: Marshall, Joshua Micah.


    Heh (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 23, 2008 at 07:54:01 AM EST
    What was your take on "shuck and jive"? "Jesse Jackson?" "RFK assasination?"

    What a clown.


    Does this make Marshall Beltway Press Corp? (none / 0) (#44)
    by pluege on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 03:23:56 PM EST
    makes sense to me. Certainly fact-free, personal opinion approach is consistent.

    oops (none / 0) (#45)
    by pluege on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 03:25:06 PM EST
    Certainly "Marshall's" fact-free...