home

Double Standards

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:17:38 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

If there is one thing that has truly has bothered me about the reactions of some of the Left blogs is the blatant hypocrisy they have displayed. The outrage they have voiced on behalf of every perceived slight of Barack Obama and his campaign has been just plain laughable while they have excused every smear, sexist or otherwise against Hillary Clinton.

Note - Comments are closed.

Consider this thoughtful analysis of the Samantha Power brouhaha by Josh Marshall. I happen to think his analysis makes a lot of sense. But here is my problem, when it comes to attacks on Hillary Clinton's character and honesty (see "she'll say anything" and "Bush-Cheney lite" for two such examples) and for the sexist smears from NBC, Josh has had nothing to say about it. Indeed, he spent a lot of time defending NBC and misdescribing what the Clinton campaign said about the Shuster episode.

I absolutely deplore what the Clinton campaign is doing now in contrasting Obama to McCain on the C-i-C question. I have consistently criticized the racial remarks made by Clinton surrogates. In two instances the Clinton campaign fired two campaign operatives, one in Iowa and one in New Hampshire. There was no thoughtful explanation provided for those episodes. The blatant hypocrisy and bias is undeniable. It bothers me and it utterly undermines the credibility of the complaints you hear from those quarters. These folks do themselves a great disservice imo.

< Undermining "The Will Of The People" | Friday Open Thread >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Double Standards | 198 comments (198 topical)
    Can you imagine the outrage (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Jim J on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:21:03 PM EST
    if Wolfson had called Obama a "monster?" They would not only demand for his resignation, but immediate execution without trial.

    Yes, he only compared (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:29:06 PM EST
    the Obama campaign to Ken Starr

    [ Parent ]
    This is true (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:30:55 PM EST
    and really stupid of Wolfson. But that has no effect on the November GE.

    [ Parent ]
    And Power did the right thing (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:33:36 PM EST
    and resigned; Wolfson should at least apologize or say he overreacted.  I'm not holding my breath.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:36:43 PM EST
    And posted just that this morning.

    [ Parent ]
    Fair enough, I missed that (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:44:35 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    David Axelrod and Obama should also apologize (5.00 / 7) (#51)
    by BigB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:44:36 PM EST
    David Axelrod should also apologize for bringing up whitewater and Obama should apologize for bringing up Rose Law Firm.

    These are things that were investigated by a partisan independent counsel for close to ten years. And, he couldn't do anything with them. If the Obama campiagn is going to dig these up then it is appropriate to point out that it represents Ken Starr like tactics.

    The Obama campigan brought this out on Wednesday the day after they lost.

    [ Parent ]

    Could we have an apology from JJJr (none / 0) (#158)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:14:27 PM EST
    For the "we must analyze these tears" comment, please?

    [ Parent ]
    Its not dumb (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:14:36 PM EST
    what he doing is a using a repeatable sound bite to convey that the Obama campaign is attacking Clinton using the ham sandwich rope a dope inclusive of a fishing expedition while insinuating guilt, something is hiding udner the bed and when and if she dose provide the docs they will pick at a pimple until is a cancerous tumor the AH HA a red herring and waste of time and emotion but Tweety, KO and Josh can rationalize as massive problem that it is not.  I happen to agree with Wolfson and it's dirty, and its ugly and I don't like it.

    I however would retaliate differently demanding Obama to take action to remove any implied suspicion and submit to the Press requests of on the record interview concerning the Rezko Obama home co purchase and the subsequent land deal while Rezko was under federal investigation for political corruption, for the good of the Party which would be just as dirty.

    [ Parent ]

    But see here' s my problem... (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:37:18 PM EST
    ...you can't take offense at being compared to Ken Starr and then use the same GOP talking points that were going around during the Whitewater investigations. I'm sure it is unpleasant for the Obama campaign to be compared to Starr but they have also been preaching unity with Republican so it would almost at this point make more sense for them to defend Ken Starr, crazy as that sounds. Too many inconsistencies, which I think is BTD's point.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow, is that a stretch (none / 0) (#43)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:42:01 PM EST
    the same talking points as the GOP during Whitewater?  Come on now.

    [ Parent ]
    Because (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by cmugirl on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:39:23 PM EST
    Axlerod tried to bring up the Whitewater fiasco.

    [ Parent ]
    In response to (none / 0) (#46)
    by rilkefan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:42:57 PM EST
    a reference to "land deals", "law firms", presidential library donors, ...

    Clinton's camp pushing Rezko is also Starrian, of course.

    [ Parent ]

    True (none / 0) (#176)
    by hookfan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:43:12 PM EST
    Can both parties stop the witch hunts and guilt by association innuendo? I would much rather hear about what their views are on Chavez, and what to do about our poor relations with South America, what to do about our overdependence on the Saudi's oil, our broken relations with "old Europe", how to stop screwing up our trade deals with Canada, and what to do about our billions lost in tourism trade due to homeland security and border idiocy. Hopefully there are more important things to electing a nominee than who is calling who what names.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes. They'd send him to Guantanamo! (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:10:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yep (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:30:19 PM EST
    Same with Goolsbee's lies on the NAFTA meeting.

    Blatant hypocrisy.

    [ Parent ]

    I listened to Hillary's Obama vs McCain (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:28:53 PM EST
    CIC business too and I gagged.  I really don't want the left blogs to earn the cred of Redstate though either so please bloggers - get your head together!

    Oh, so true (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by BRockNYLA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:32:54 PM EST
    The lefty blogs are mostly dead to me at this point.  There are so many places I used enjoy (Kos, TPM, etc) that I can not stand anymore.  Again, I don't mind them having a preference, but at least stop pretending your unbiased (that's you Josh) and at least try to be fair.  

    Keith Olberman is dead to me for that very same reason.  He is off my tivo list along with Tweety. Dan Abrams is kinda cute, though.

    Totally agreed (5.00 / 8) (#41)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:41:06 PM EST
    bias is fine with me -- heck, I find this place sometimes biased, especially in terms of the commenters, and Jeralyn has never made her Clinton support a secret. That's fine with me.

    But throwing basic intellectual honesty out the window in favor of blatant and sometimes incredibly low-quality shilling is where I draw the line.

    A lot of the left blogs have been stunningly disappointing IMO. Not because of which candidate they tend to favor, but because of the quality of the arguments or discussion. They've become worse than Fox News ever was.

    There are a few outposts of relative sanity, but surprisingly few.

    [ Parent ]

    The final straw for me (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by badger on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:39:47 PM EST
    at dKos was a front-page post by DHinMI speculating that former MI governor Jim Blanchard was the Clinton supporter who told the Canadians the NAFTA talk was just politicking and not policy.

    It was essentially an exercise in "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" completely ignoring the facts that:

    a. It hasn't been established that any Clinton supporter actually did that and,

    b. There's absolutely no evidence Blanchard was involved.

    But I guess if you hate Blanchard and you hate Clinton, it's OK to blame them for anything at all, even stuff you make up yourself. Even if the facts ultimately vindicate that post, it had absolutely no basis in reality at the time it was written, making it simply another hit piece - about the same level as the Kennedy assassination or 9/11 conspiracy stuff that kos (rightly) bans.

    [ Parent ]

    DHinMI Also Did A FP Post On How Horrible (none / 0) (#187)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:53:37 PM EST
    Hillary was to campaign in Florida despite her pledge not to do so.  DHinMI got called out on the misinformation on that post pretty quickly by those not drinking the Obama kool aid. For once, the rebuttal comments were at the top of the thread and hard to ignore,  

    [ Parent ]
    They don't just excuse the smears, they help (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Teresa on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:34:31 PM EST
    create them. There is another FP post on the skin color video. We are going to need another server for all of the people leaving other blogs.

    People say it will be better when the primaries are over but it won't for me. I will always remember the hypocrisy. If somehow HC pulls this out, will they then start defending her? They'll be too busy trying to walk away from the smears they created.

    I agree with you on HC's comment about CiC. I don't like her bringing McCain's qualifications into it. She needs to keep the comparisons between herself and Obama or herself and McCain. If Obama wins, they'll use those words against him.

    That has been a flop (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:35:41 PM EST
    I am leaving that one alone.

    [ Parent ]
    Speaking of hypocrisy. (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:56:00 PM EST
    Remember the outrage on the "A list" blogs about Path to 9/11?  They were going to boycott ABC, all its advertisers, etc. etc. because they had the audacity to distort Clinton's record (and distorted it was).

    Well, ABC needs to rescreen the movie, because I know of whole legions of brand new Clinton haters who will rejoice in seeing the "truth" about Clinton.  The ratings will be tremendous, I'm sure.

    Just saying.

    [ Parent ]

    Would needing another server (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Dave B on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:19:25 PM EST
    be a bad thing?

    I didn't even realize that this place existed before I couldn't take it at dKos anymore.  It's breataking.

    I have a user id of 10100 at Kos and am a trusted user.

    But now I am considered a troll, just for trying to call bs - in a nice way.

    They are totally destroying any credibility that they have fought for.  All the worst things said about blogs by the MSM are coming to fruition over there.

    [ Parent ]

    I feel your pain (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:35:11 PM EST
    I have a user id in the 20,000s and have a trusted user for four years. I tried to stick it out for a very long time, because I didn't want to give in to the hostility, but since I discovered this place I've found I hardly even go over there to see what is on the front page (since it is almost always candidate crap).  The last two diaries I wrote were about the DOJ's refusal to enforce the subpoenas on Miers and Bolton, and telecom immunity. No one was interested in them.

    This place has been so refreshing.

    [ Parent ]

    HRC always guilty even of gossip based accusations (none / 0) (#201)
    by Ellie on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:44:11 PM EST
    My skepticism about Team Obama's commitment to a new politics has been crunking since the drumbeat of the charge that HRC is "divisive", and only increased since. It's an attributed, passive "problem" having nothing to do with her performance, actions, abilities, etc.

    It's based on the hateful actions of others: the 15-yr unmerited RW and media persecution of the Clintons based on their engagement and success in the political process. I don't like the mindset behind it and the intentions. Are all of the targets the hard right despises to blame for being "divisive"?

    Rush Limbaugh and his snorting pals call her a FemiNazi and Hitlery and Tucker Carlson crosses his legs ... ergo HRC is "divisive"? I'm still not in either camp, but Team Obama still has a lot of 'splainin to do on that count.

    Beyond that suspiciously cynical mindset, the notion that removing HRC from the race for the WH will improve politics returns everyone to the drawing board:

    • Step one: A cool speech for CHANGE! New politics! 'Nuff niceness!
    • Step one: ????
    • Step one: Unity!

    However, the people being inspired aren't the people TeamO will be persuading and working with. Who else, already under many many years of fire from the RW, does TeamO consider "divisive"?

    So far, the promises are riding on a new face amd voice surrounded by some smart, targeted marketing fluff. It's cobbled-together old feelgood phrases and self-help lingo dissolving into grooviness that leaves a nice smell.

    Can we all agree that politics sucks? Duh, YES!!! WOO HOO! Does everyone want more good weather and less bad weather?? Oh man, you can't imagine how many times I've wished that.

    The O-mentum has already crested IMO. People who are tuning "to be inspired" are getting the same warmed over phrases they've seen over and over in soundbites, like those corporately endorsed cool tunes guaranteed by your iPod commercial not to make you look like a fricken dork who doesn't know what to listen to, but desperately needs hipster content. (Clue: it's not Alternative Music if it's in Billboard's top ten.)

    The initial whoosh was helped along by the bored, ever lazy media wanting not to be left out of the next big thing. Let's see where Obama goes on merit and actions.

    [ Parent ]

    Speaking for me only (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:35:20 PM EST
    I think you speak for many of us.
    and thank god for that
    trojan horse strategy (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by sancho on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:35:57 PM EST
    Perhaps this has been said before but the Samantha Power thing gives the media another chance to discuss whether Hillary is a scary monster. The AP version of the story repreated all of her negative comments about Hillary. I don't know if she was acting on her own or had been encouraged to say this to an out of the way Scottish paper so it would "seem" like she just "happened" to get caught talking out of turn saying what "everybody" knows anyway. They apologize but the negativity somehow sticks to Hillary: the essence of a trojan horse move. Thus, speaking just for me, I think that the Obama campaign is getting from the controversy what they want and it was probably authorized in some way. Whether it works for them, we'll just have to see.

    The double standard of the blogs has befuddled and depressed me as well. If we take this double standard as being representative of the democratic party as a whole, I don't see how they can win in November. Too much self-deceit to allow for consensus building.

    Anyway, combine this flap with the race darkening thing, and it is clear the Obama campaign is ratcheding up its negativity. I wonder if they can go much further with success--b/c who at this point is left to be persuaded?

    I don't think so. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:44:17 PM EST
    Power is an incredibly strong advisor to 'sacrifice' for the cause.  

    [ Parent ]
    I doubt (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:46:44 PM EST
    she will go far

    [ Parent ]
    She can still be an adviser, just not on staff (none / 0) (#74)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:54:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I had wondered about that (none / 0) (#125)
    by Foxx on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:30:16 PM EST
    trojan horse thing, but the full quote was pretty ridiculous. Ohio is the only state Clinton can win? Ohions are "obsessed"?

    It was a window on the state of delusion in the Obama campaign. And the sexism ("look at her ergh").

    I think probably it was a very smart interviewer who buddied her up.

    [ Parent ]

    the British press (none / 0) (#144)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:50:55 PM EST
    is used to demanding answers, and they don't let you tap dance around.  They cut you off when you're spouting talking points and tell you to cut the crap.  Have you ever seen any of the old footage of Tony Blair being interrogated by Parliament?  Bush would've huddled into a corner and cried like a baby under that kind of scrutiny.  The press is even more fearless.

    [ Parent ]
    The British press has ... (none / 0) (#194)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:58:53 PM EST
    higher journalistic standards.  So even when they show bias, you can ferret out the facts.  Because the facts are usually there.

    In large part, the American press has given up on journalistic standards and facts.  There are some notable exceptions, but they're becoming harder and harder to find.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton Rules (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:36:24 PM EST
    Any attack on the Clintons is fair game.  The Republicans set this precedent in the 90s and the blogs were happy to pick up where they left off.

    Power's resignation is the exception rather than the rule.  Anyone remember what happened to Axelrod when he suggested Hillary bore responsibility for Benazir Bhutto's assassination?  Oh yeah, Obama defended him by saying he hadn't claimed Hillary was "directly" responsible.  Ah, the Clinton Rules.

    Why was saying that Clinton wasn't (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:21:05 PM EST
    "directly" responsible okay, when Clinton got slammed for saying that she took Obama at his word that he was a Christian -- which was immediately followed by a comment that she understands how awful it is to be hit with baseless smears?

    Clinton's statement that McCain has passed a CiC "test" that Obama hasn't was both inappropriate and counterproductive -- I am very disappointed that she did that.  But virtually every time Clinton makes the case that she is more experienced, or has better credentials than Obama, this is taken by his supporters (if not him) as "negative" campaigning or a "smear."  After a while, it makes those words meaningless.

    That doesn't excuse the CiC statement.  But Obama's insistence that Clinton DOESN'T have the judgment to be CiC in light of a vote that several of his own prominent supporters -- John Kerry, Tom Daschle -- also made reflects both arrogance, and hypocrisy, IMHO.    

    [ Parent ]

    Judgement (none / 0) (#166)
    by CST on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:24:59 PM EST
    He also said Mccain didn't have the correct judgement. See the difference...

    [ Parent ]
    Well (3.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:38:00 PM EST
    Axelrod's comment was not quite as blatant and he is more important to the campaign.

    I think you can defend both though Axelrod should have regretted the remark at the least.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:51:10 PM EST
    I'm not saying he had to resign, but it was stunning to see Obama actually DEFEND him.  Why stick your neck out for your big-mouthed strategist?  They should have apologized and moved on.

    One artifact of the Clinton Rules is that if you attack Hillary, the media simply doesn't descend on you like a pack of howling banshees demanding a retraction.  It leads the Obama folks to think they never have to back away from anything.  Do you remember when Obama supporters ran that Spanish-language ad saying "Hillary doesn't respect our people" - and Obama's spokesman FLATLY DECLINED to denounce it?

    Hillary, by contrast, is forced by the media to apologize for something practically on a daily basis.  Both candidates have supporters and surrogates who say stupid things, but whether you have to apologize and take a PR hit for a news cycle is a function of whether the media decides to focus on you, not a function of how bad your statement was.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD (none / 0) (#190)
    by Andy08 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:55:56 PM EST
    you cannot have it both ways. That's a double standard right there.

    [ Parent ]
    Powers (none / 0) (#96)
    by 0 politico on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:05:20 PM EST
    seems to have left another nugget for everyone to ponder before her resignation came through.

    Taylor Marsh (http://www.taylormarsh.com/) has picked up on an interview that Powers gave the Politico, that was noted by Halperin, and again there seems to be video (BBC, but, I can't run RealPlayer in the office).  

    "She recently said in an interview that Obama's Iraq war plan is not a sure thing. Via Mark Halperin, who has the video portion, we get the full effect of what an Obama presidency would be and it's not what he's campaigning on."

    The Halperin page is at:
    http://thepage.time.com/2008/03/07/power-shocker-ii-adviser-pulls-back-on-obama-iraq-pledge/

    After the BO supporters roundly acuse HC of doing or saying anything to get elected, this does seem rather hypocritical.  It certainly undermines the "honesty" and "new politic" espoused by his campaign and supporters.

    "You can't make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009. . . . So to think - it would be the height of ideology to sort of say, `Well, I said it, therefore I'm going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.'"

    I am a bit dumb founded.  Perhaps this is a continuation of Amatuer Hour.

    Perhaps, we should just start over and have a complete "redo" with everyone's cards, straight up, on the table.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, technically that's true (none / 0) (#180)
    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:43:54 PM EST
    Especially in matters of war, you can't absolutely tie yourself down to statements you made in a campaign if things have subsequently changed. It is why neither Obama nor Clinton would pledge to have ALL U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of their first terms, rightly so.

    But if Obama decided to pursue a significantly different policy than the one he's been running on, he'd have some 'splaining to do to the people who had just elected him, and I would think he would need to make a case as to why things were much different than he'd expected them to be (assuming it wasn't something obvious that was already public knowledge).

    I find the whole NAFTA thing more troubling (albeit on a topic not quite as serious) because it suggested a deliberate misrepresentation of position rather than a "reservation of options."

    Having said all that, Obama's signature issue, other than his general inspirational being, is his early opposition to the war.  That opposition has masked what is probably a more centrist position on other issues, making him rather than Clinton the progressives' darling. If the Halperin video (which I have not seen) is more than a reservation of options, than that ought to be highly relevant to the entire blogosphere -- let alone the entire electorate.

    [ Parent ]

    Precisely ! (none / 0) (#182)
    by Andy08 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:50:02 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    why did this appear here? (none / 0) (#185)
    by Andy08 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:51:55 PM EST
    I replied to another comment...

    [ Parent ]
    Precisely! (none / 0) (#188)
    by Andy08 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:54:01 PM EST
    Where was Obama's statement about clean campaign?
    That comment  from Axelrod was outrageous

    [ Parent ]
    my favorite (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:37:06 PM EST
    was in one of the "Clinton campaign Blackens Obama!" discussions, where somebody unironically put up a photoshopped piece of Clinton in a beauty queen outfit complete with USA sash, and nobody said boo.

    its a sort of universal thing (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:41:18 PM EST
    not at all limited to blogs or even the MSM.
    one of my passions is political cartoons.
    if you check out the latest crop of political cartoons they are absolutely brutal to Clinton.
    I literally could not find ONE cartoon sympathetic to her.
    and could not find one that was even critical of him in anything but a power puff way.
    its strange.


    [ Parent ]
    Unfortunately, (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by Boston Boomer on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:02:25 PM EST
    blatant sexism is apparently still acceptable in American culture.  As a woman who was inspired by Betty Friedan's writing when I was in high school way back in the early '60s, it makes me very sad to realize that I will probably be dead before sexism is actually rejected by "polite society."

    I very much appreciate BTD writing about this topic, because many of the "left" bloggers refuse to even admit that Hillary has been subjected to sexist attacks.

    [ Parent ]

    seriously (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:09:26 PM EST
    if you want to see some really sexist stuff that passes itself off as funny check out MSNBC 'week in political cartoons'.
    doesnt matter much which week.  take your pick.

    Linked text

    [ Parent ]

    you know what (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:12:51 PM EST
    they updated the lists.
    they are different than they were yesterday.
    clearly I was not the only one who thought it was a bit one sided.
    funny.


    [ Parent ]
    Boston Boomer (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:47:00 PM EST
    Inspired by Betty Friedan? Are you one of those "shoulder pad feminists" that Maureen Dowd was excoriating yesterday?

    Apparently I am too (early 50s, never burned bras or hated men but wore big shoulder pads in the early 80s, like all professional women of the era). Apparently, the fact that I saw sexism, then and now, was due to my own warped perception ("I see dead people!") rather than the existence of sexism.

    [ Parent ]

    Not to mention the Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 0) (#164)
    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:22:29 PM EST
    nutcracker.

    Can you imagine uproar over the Barack Obama equivalent?  I can't even write down what it would be because it is so repugnant.

    [ Parent ]

    One thing to remember (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:45:51 PM EST
    Obama said he would like Lugar/Hagel in his cabinet.  Basically, he's implying that he's rejected the Democratic field for defense and would have to hire...Republicans? in fact, ultra Conservative Republicans?

    How is that so hugely different than Clinton praising McCain, based on realities that he's been to war, that he's been in government for quite some time.

    I don't see the huge difference, or if I do, I'd say Obama's throwing all Democratic defense experts under the bus while Hillary is only throwing Obama under the bus.

    I can think of at least (none / 0) (#60)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:48:31 PM EST
    one recent example of a Dem President appointment a  GOP type as defense secretary

    [ Parent ]
    No one is saying what is right or wrong (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by SarahinCA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:22:16 PM EST
    you missed the argument....why can Obama openly say he'll appoint a Republican to DOD, but Clinton can't say McCain has experience?

    Double standard is right.

    [ Parent ]

    no... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by CST on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:29:06 PM EST
    Obama appointing a republican on his cabinet is nothing compared to endorsing a republican PRESIDENT.  Clinton has also said she could easily have republicans in her cabinet.  Obama has NOT said the McCain will make a better candidate than Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    No one endorsed a republican President (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by tree on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:04:39 PM EST
    Clinton said that McCain was qualified on experience. It wasn't an endorsement for President. It was an acknowledgment that attacking McCain on experience is stupid and counterproductive. And it was also a way to mute or redirect any possible general election attack on her.  Presidencies are decided on many other issues besides experience. Admitting your opponent has a strength is not admitting defeat. The Obama campaign needs to learn that.

    [ Parent ]
    no... (none / 0) (#157)
    by CST on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:10:43 PM EST
    She said McCan passed the Comander in Chief threshold, that he is ready to be president, and that Obama is ready to give a speech.  She didn't try to defend McCain, she openly put him above Obama as a Comander in Chief.  Period.

    [ Parent ]
    A liberal Republican (none / 0) (#81)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:57:37 PM EST
    and it was at least the second apointee.

    And besides that, it doesn't excuse Obama.  Maybe when Clinton did it, it was wrong too?

    [ Parent ]

    Ah, a liberal Republican (none / 0) (#94)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:04:42 PM EST
    now I see

    And until he actually does it, it would only have Bill Clinton who made that mistake

    [ Parent ]

    Second? (none / 0) (#170)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:29:27 PM EST
    If you're talking about Bill Cohen, he was the third Secretary of Defense, following Aspen and Perry.  And that was in Clinton's second term.

    I believe that's the only Republican in a key cabinet position during the entire eight years.

    He did have some Republican advisers David Gergen and Dick (yikes!) Morris. And he held onto some of the Joint Chiefs who's political affiliation is always murky.  And the DCI for a while, right?

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think you can compare (none / 0) (#168)
    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:28:17 PM EST
    Bill Cohen to Chuck Hagel or Richard Lugar.  With the exception of Hagel's opposition to the war, Hagel is an extremely conservative Republican. I don't even know what Lugar's position on the war resolution was, but I do know that he's only slightly less conservative than Hagel, and in all relevant respects he has been a loyal supporter of the Bushie agenda.

    It ties into the Obama meme that all that is required to be "progressive" is early opposition to the war.  And it continues to confuse, I think, true bipartisanship with validating or excusing Republican partisanship of the past.

    Yes, it would be great to move beyond partisanship, but the fact is that our system of government is based on parties.  Meeting in the middle is not only impractical in many cases (particularly with a president whose idea of bipartisanship is "capitulate"), but it is sometimes absolutely wrong on principle. This is something that the Democratic Party has had a hard time coming to grips with, preferring instead to keep capitulating.

    [ Parent ]

    Hagel and Lugar are extremely conservative (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:10:10 PM EST
    on numerous levels and frankly this habit of Democrats running to Republicans to fill Defense and Foreign Policy positions is a tacit admission that there are no Democrats good enough to serve in those positions - which I don't think is true.

    I think Obama has a long record of propping up Republicans whilst similtaneously dissing Democrats.  It is a key element of the "post-partisan" campaign strategy.

    I found Clinton's comments about McCain no more problematic than what Obama has been doing all along in his campaign.

    [ Parent ]

    "New" politics? (5.00 / 9) (#55)
    by dk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:46:33 PM EST
    I don't buy Josh's take away message (that even though Obama is all about "new politics," he has to play "old politics" to beat Hillary).

    Obama and Hillary are both playing the same kind of politics.  Politics is politics.  It's fine to support one candidate over the other for a whole host of reasons, but if you think it's because one has a "newer" kind of politics than the other one, you are deluding yourself.

    To me, the obvious answer to the strange behavior of the A-list bloggers is that they actually believe that Obama practices some sort of "new politics."  I think they are wrong, and the proof is in all the contortions they have to wrap themselves up with in these kinds of situations.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:48:35 PM EST
    I don't buy Josh's take away message (that even though Obama is all about "new politics," he has to play "old politics" to beat Hillary).

    Therein lies the proverbial slippery slope.

    [ Parent ]

    and yet (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:40:39 PM EST
    it's still all Clinton's fault.

    If she has so much power over him, why doesn't she use it for more evil?

    [ Parent ]

    Pick one Projection or Denial (none / 0) (#71)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:53:52 PM EST
    either defense mechanisms definition would fit.  

    [ Parent ]
    meet the new politics (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:49:00 PM EST
    same as the old politics

    [ Parent ]
    Did you read Brooks (I know, I know) in the NYT (none / 0) (#73)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:54:44 PM EST
    this morning?  Calls it playing by Clinton's Rules, saying BO has to get nasty to win but if he does he's toast because it's not the New Politics, and he's all about the New Politics.  Ha!

    [ Parent ]
    And what kind of politics do (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by Practically Lactating on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:09:26 PM EST
    they think the GOP will be playing if Obama wins?  Certainly not this "new politics."

    The fact is that politics is by nature an adversarial exercise and Obama is selling something that politics has never and won't ever be able to provide (and I think he knows it).  

    If you want hope and unity, do some volunteer work, better your community, etc.  There are a number of ways to achieve this end, but electing a president to give it to you simply won't do it, and frankly, I find the idea that a president can or should be responsible for providing such things to be childish.  If you want hope and unity, by all means go get it and stop waiting on someone else to provide it.  Me?  I just want universal healthcare.

    [ Parent ]

    But Obama isn't selling "new politics," (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by dk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:14:45 PM EST
    he is selling the idea that he believes in "new politics."  And I don't think he does.  That's my point.

    And to be clear, does that make him a Monster?  Absolutely not.  It makes him a politician, just like Hillary Clinton and all the other ones.

    [ Parent ]

    I think selling and believing are (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Practically Lactating on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:20:10 PM EST
    essentially the same.  Obama is not just offering his belief in new politics, but his ability to convince others to adopt that same belief.  I think this equates to selling new politics.

    Apart from that minor distinction, I fully agree.

    [ Parent ]

    Granted. (none / 0) (#112)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:15:59 PM EST
    I may not know as much about the world as you.

    But a country who believes in its President hardly seems like a bad thing to me.

    [ Parent ]

    I'd love to have a president to believe (none / 0) (#119)
    by Practically Lactating on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:23:46 PM EST
    in, a president that is intelligent and capable. Both Dem candidates can provide this.  

    Hope, unity, and "new politics" are in an entirely different realm.

    [ Parent ]

    They have blown their credibility (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:48:43 PM EST
    I do believe TPM did do a pretty good job on the USA's firings but once the Primary started and Edwards lost they went sillyballs Josh started crowing about Zogby polls dancing on Clinton's first progressive bloggers grave.  I only visit to see what the angry militant wing might be up to but never for information. I dont believe its a concern though they cant hurt the Party or Senator Clinton now that people are on to their hate Clinton at all cost agenda, they I believe have broken off into a movement instead.  And what about Huff Post a ghost town Im not watching the cable talking pundit Clinton haters but it appears as if they also have been moved left of even the left MSM and banned. KOS is just sad very angry very male to bad that.  but good news new blogs are starting up and will replace those, so thats good stuff.

    They need to prepare themselves Senator Clinton will I believe likely be the nominee they jsut become Rush L types then.

    BTD can you explain (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Polkan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:54:14 PM EST
    your point again about C-i-C?

    I watched Clinton talk about it several times now. My impression has always been that she insists (consistently) that with McCain being the nominee he will compete on national security. Which makes her argument about her own credentials to the superdelegates and the country only more relevant and necessary.

    Without making that argument she would be effectively protecting Obama during the nomination process, and therefore helping him win the nomination.

    Why should she be helping Obama? A Democrat strong on the C-i-C would always have better chance to win the GE then a Democrat who's weak on national security.

    I absolutely (5.00 / 0) (#195)
    by Andy08 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:58:56 PM EST
    agree with your assessment. BTD is taking Clinton's comments out of context. You are correct that was the context in which they were made. And she is absolutely right. She has a valid point.

     

    [ Parent ]

    She might not win. (none / 0) (#83)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:58:48 PM EST
    And giving the other party ammunition for the General Election is why candidates don't attack each other on personal levels in the primary.

    Well, why they didn't.  Or shouldn't.

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree completely (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Polkan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:03:23 PM EST
    • Assumption #1 is that avoid this point will remove it from GE debate. In my view, that's a ridiculous assumption

    • Assumption #2 is that McCain will win the national security argument against Clinton.

    What happens if she wins this argument against McCain? We've seen her come back from the dead against all odds before. I have no doubt that she can win national security against anyone.

    [ Parent ]
    The surge is (none / 0) (#147)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:55:30 PM EST
    working militarily....There has not been a U.S. combat death in Iraq for two weeks--the last one was 24 Feb.....

    Since then, there has been one fatality caused by a vehicle accident, and a soldier who died at Bethesda from wounds suffered months ago.

    McCain was right about the surge militarily.....Hillary supported the war, only supported the troops halfway, opposed the surge, called Petraeus a liar in front of the world ("willing suspension of disbelief"), and will be tied up in knots trying to explain her Kerry-like flip-flopping and grandstanding for the cameras....

    On the other hand, if we end up with fewer than 10 combat deaths this month (which seems likely) and that trend continues for months, the national security issue may go away entirely.

    [ Parent ]

    WTF? (none / 0) (#167)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:27:33 PM EST
    I know that you have been a Republican but to mouth GOP talking points here at TL is over the top.

    The surge doesn't exist anymore, is a festering bulge at this point.  We need to withdraw our troops ASAP. Lip service to GOP talking points is absurd.

    [ Parent ]

    Dems are saying (none / 0) (#174)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:40:54 PM EST
    it too....militarily.....How is my analysis wrong?

    I am an Independent who likes anti-war Lincoln Chafee.....I have no illusions Hillary would remove any troops that were not already coming home under Bush....

    [ Parent ]

    Wrong Because (5.00 / 0) (#184)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:51:36 PM EST
    The surge was an utter failure, except if you were mouthing GOP talking points. It has been long over and now we are back to basic occupation again.

    There have been many Iraqi deaths this week. The fact that the US is staying in safe quarters behind the green zone does not mean that Iraq is any safer. It just means that the US are not exposing themselves to risk. The surge was suppose to make Iraq safe. It hasn't.

    [ Parent ]

    Here are the numbers (none / 0) (#197)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:00:54 PM EST
    This link is quite good....Under any analysis, the violence in Iraq has gone down....U.S. combat deaths down from over 100 to probably under 10 this month....Iraqi deaths down from 3000 to about 500-600....

    If you have a link to a different military analysis, I'd be happy to look at it.....

    I opposed the war, still do, but it's hard to deny facts like these....That is why I think Obama's position on Iraq is better than Hillary's--it is not dependent on things going badly on the ground in Iraq.  

    [ Parent ]

    Surge isn't working militarily (5.00 / 0) (#192)
    by rilkefan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:57:32 PM EST
    The ethnic cleansing and arming folks previously considered bad guys is working, short-term.  But the point was political.  It's like saying a baseball team's outfielders aren't crashing into the fences any more, so the pitch-wrong-handed strategy is working.

    [ Parent ]
    So... (5.00 / 0) (#189)
    by cmugirl on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:54:43 PM EST
    Obama saying she lacks "judgment" because of her AUMF vote doesn't hurt her in the GE?  I realize McCain voted for it to, but just the sound byte that "she lacks judgment" doesn't play well.

    He also has publicly said that "she will do anything to win" (like he isn't).

    How is this helpful?

    [ Parent ]

    Everybody says that (none / 0) (#109)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:15:14 PM EST
    But it never happens.


    [ Parent ]
    True (none / 0) (#121)
    by Polkan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:26:28 PM EST
    but everybody also said Clinton would lose NH, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    I really don't think (none / 0) (#155)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:06:20 PM EST
    McCain is going to start quoting Clinton in his ads.

    The only thing I can compare it to is moveon trying to quote Hagel in an ad during the 2004 election.  Hagel released a statement the next day saying "That's not true, I support Bush 100%."

    Then the ad is nullified and you spent the money on it for nothing.

    Nor is McCain going to quote Obama's Team (calling the Clintons liars) in his ads if she wins.

    Everyone complains about it.

    It never happens.


    [ Parent ]

    I know TPM is the devil. (none / 0) (#183)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:51:32 PM EST
    But front page.

    http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/8357

    [ Parent ]

    An October interview (none / 0) (#91)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:03:18 PM EST
    Reporter:  Senator Clinton, back in March you said that you believed that John McCain had the experience to be CinC but that Senator Obama did not.  If you feel that way why did you choose to (accept the VP position/ask Senator Obama to be your running mate)?

    Senator Clinton: That comment is being taken out of context.  I, errrrr, didn't mean that.

    [ Parent ]

    She could use Obama as VP (none / 0) (#95)
    by Polkan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:04:46 PM EST
    for many other reasons. VP is not a C-i-C.

    [ Parent ]
    But what if she loses.... (none / 0) (#100)
    by CST on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:10:01 PM EST
    And she still might.  What then?  I would like to assume that she will suppport Obama in that case, but this will undermine that argument.

    [ Parent ]
    Please (none / 0) (#104)
    by Polkan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:13:33 PM EST
    Here is a translation of some have said here:

    "Since you can't be sure you will win, then don't use the argument that your Dem opponent will surely lose"

    How on earth does that make sense??

    [ Parent ]

    It doesn't make any sense at all (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:40:30 PM EST
    and you shouldn't expect that.  It's basically "Clinton did blah".  

    If anyone thinks McCain needs Hillary to verify his CiC qualifications, they need a long rest.


    [ Parent ]

    Cause (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:05:15 PM EST
    If you believe the other person is not qualified and is risking the GE, you have a responsibility to speak up.  That is ridiculous.  You think McCain is not gonna use it or that he did not figure it out?  All we need a tank picture with Obama.  

    [ Parent ]
    VP has to be (none / 0) (#149)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:58:28 PM EST
    qualified to be CINC....

    If she is going to leave Obama out of national security issues, why would he take VP?  Governor of Illinois would be much more attractive....He could still come back as a Presidential candidate complaining about Wsshington insiders....

    [ Parent ]

    She didn't say Obama wasn't qualified (none / 0) (#161)
    by rilkefan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:19:31 PM EST
    Again, he's more qualified than WJC in '92, and she can say so if he's the VP.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, it looks to be working out (none / 0) (#123)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:28:01 PM EST
    real well for the Dems

    "The commercial was credited as one factor enabling Clinton to turn her campaign around in Texas last week. But, 42% of all voters said the person they'd most want to answer the phone was John McCain. Among all voters, 25% picked Clinton and another 25% named Obama as the person they'd want in the White House when a foreign policy crisis call arrived.

    Among Democrats, 46% said they'd like Clinton to take that call while 36% named Obama.

    Among Republicans, 79% named McCain while neither Democrat reached double digits."

    [ Parent ]

    Seems the problem here is with reality (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:41:33 PM EST
    not with Clinton.


    [ Parent ]
    the hyprocisy of lefty prominent blogosphere (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by toddy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:06:57 PM EST
    .
    i have no problems with website owners doing
    what they want with the sites. if you don't
    like it just click and go somewhere else.

    not the hypocrisy.

    josh marshall with his daily anti-hillary
    framing and with the chutzpah to say he is " unbiased and neutral ".

    Keith Ohlberman with his, " no beef with either
    Democratic candidates "

    do they think viewers can be that stupid and dump?

    There's nothing extraordinary here (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by esmense on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:24:54 PM EST
    Obama used praise of Reagan to trash Bill Clinton's administration (and appeal to Republicans) before the Nevada caucus.

    Putting aside the fact that the Clintons were personally and understandably offended, I thought it was extremely bad strategy because it undermined his ability, in the GE, to, as a Democrat, benefit from the public perception of very real successes -- fiscal responsibility, job and wage growth, new business growth, etc. --  of the most recent and most successful in almost half a century, Democratic administration. It also, of course, created a negative talking point for the GOP -- aimed at besmirching and under-cutting an important association and strength -- to use against Clinton if she ended up with the nomination.
    And, it did all that while most likely angering more Democrats than winning over Republicans.

    For all those reasons, I thought it was really inept campaigning. (One, I think, of the many times Obama's people have let their petty, personal dislike for the Clintons cloud their brains).

    Is Clinton's Commander in Chief statement on the same level as an insult? Maybe. But, in terms of political strategy, it is actually much less damaging all around. It doesn't do any harm to Obama in the GE because he isn't running and can't run on his military and foreign policy experience anyway -- he is, instead, running AGAINST both Clinton and McCain's experience. His argument won't be that he has experience and a record like McCain's, but that McCain's record is the reason he shouldn't be president.

    Does Hillary's statement provide any benefit to her? In the setting in which it was made, surrounded by generals, sure, for some voters it will probably be reassuring.

    And, in the context of her full statement, the praise she gave McCain is really no different than the praise Obama is always sure to make in his statements about his potential Republican rival. Both Obama and Clinton know that they have to compete against McCain within the context of always paying respect to his military history and heroism.

    Talkleft (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by pavaoh on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:01:21 PM EST
    I love this site. It is the only place where there is true discussion that I have found.  You can agree or disagree but you get a chance to see the other side's veiw without all the rage and hate.   I watched the hearings on CSPAN during the nineties and have my own opinions of what was true then and what was lies.  Tuesday I voted for Hillary.  I am a woman but I voted for her because I trust her more.  I voted for her because Obama didn't earn my trust.  I voted for her because she had the strength to handle everything and come through as a stronger person.  Now she is going through some of the same treatment and I know she will handle it just as well.  I think she has worked hard and understands what is needed in today's world and has the strenghth to follow through no matter what.

    Present company accepted ... (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:53:05 PM EST
    most "lefty blogs" never struck me as very lefty.

    They rarely discuss civil liberties or civil rights.  Gay rights are almost never mentioned.  And I've also almost never seen the issues of African Americans addressed.

    Other minority groups or interests are pushed even farther to the back of the bus.

    They're certainly not causes of the blogosphere.

    Worker's rights?  Not much.  You have to explain "Taft Hartley" to most bloggers.  The word "Unions" usually results in crickets.  

    Forget about economics or any sophisticated discussion of geopolitics.

    Global warming ... maybe ... if you keep it very simple.

    Most of it is tribal.  Bigging up Democrats, and bashing Republicans.  Or chatter about language and strategy.

    There are exceptions to this, of course.  But, over all, I've always eyed the net roots with a skeptical gaze.  Fair weather friends at best.

    For these reasons, their hypocrisy and fawning over Obama isn't much of a surprise to me.  It's just more of the tribalism I've come to expect.

    And, frankly, it's not that different than behavior elsewhere on the Internet. For example, in movie or TV fan forums.

    I am a Centrist (none / 0) (#191)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:57:12 PM EST


    [ Parent ]