Double Standards Again

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:15:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Today, Tweety (NBC's Hardball host Chris Matthews) brings up Bill Clinton's 1990 promise to not run for President in 1992. To Tweety this proves what untrustworthy people the Clintons are. Of course, Tweety is oblivious that, unlike Hillary Clinton who made no such statement, Obama also said he would not run for President:

Russert: When we talked back in November of ‘04 after your election, I said, “There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?”

Obama: Absolutely. I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed.

Russert: So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?

Obama: I will not.

I do not write this to criticize Obama. Pols do this type of stuff all the time. I write this to criticize the brazen and shameless hypocrisy of Tweety and NBC. Their hatred of the Clintons deranges them.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Olbermann Regrets Offensive Remarks | Mistrial Looming in Anthony Pellicano Trial >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Double Standards Again | 56 comments (56 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Tweety probably got a call from Pelosi (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Josey on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:19:30 PM EST

he was being too fair to Hillary.

Meet The What? (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by JoeCHI on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:20:19 PM EST

You beat me to a post!

I was screaming the same thing at the TV when he didn't mention Obama on MTP!

Apparently (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by ghost2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:29:16 PM EST

Bill Clinton in 1992 breaking a promise he made in 1990, proves the lack of character of his wife when she is running for President 17 years later.

However, Obama just recently breaking his promise less than one year after he made it, doesn't matter.

Tell me again, how in the name of heavens is Hillary still standing?


I was talking back to my tv too! (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:11:24 PM EST

:-) couldn't believe he said that with all seriousness.

I mean, he must have heard at SOME point that Obama had said all this, including how he wouldn't be experienced enough etc.

Nice to know it wasn't just me, reacting in that way.
That sneer over BC's lack of integrity etc. He'd never say that about The Prince ! or Leg Stimulator!


there's the presser Obama (none / 0) (#38)
by magisterludi on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:09:16 PM EST

did right after his election to the Senate. He's on vid saying he is not ready for the presidency and he would not run. He is pretty emphatic about it, too.

I wonder why the evil hillary never put it out, hmm-mm?

I mean, her being so monstrous and all.


: Oh (none / 0) (#52)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:24:12 PM EST

that's bad news. More 527 fodder for the GOP.

Not Personal. Business. (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by Petey on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:20:57 PM EST

"I write this to criticize the brazen and shameless hypocrisy of Tweety and NBC. Their hatred of the Clintons deranges them."

General Electric is not operating out of hatred. General Electric is attacking Clinton for business reasons.

The revenues General Electric derives from NBC is utterly dwarfed by the revenue they derive from GE Healthcare, GE Financial, and unionized manufacturing. Stopping universal healthcare, weakening Social Security, and further diminishing unions are the General Electric manifesto.

For GE, it's not personal - it's business.

Maybe it's not such a good idea (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by pie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:25:33 PM EST

for corporations like GE to own parts of the media.

/rolls eyes


General Electric is Different than the Others (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Petey on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:42:16 PM EST

"Maybe it's not such a good idea for corporations like GE to own parts of the media."

Interestingly, General Electric is the only one in that kind of a position.

CNN/Time-Warner is almost exclusively a media company.

ABC/Disney is almost exclusively a media company.

CBS/Viacom is almost exclusively a media company.

Even Fox is almost exclusively a media company.

Only General Electric is an industrial conglomerate that runs its media properties to help advance its non-media businesses.

GE gets less than 10% of its revenue from media and entertainment. The four other biggies all get over 90% of their revenues from media and entertainment.

The fate of universal healthcare and Social Security don't matter to the bottom lines of Time-Warner, Disney, Viacom, and Fox.

The fate of universal healthcare and Social Security very much do matter to General Electric. GE Healthcare tenaciously defends against universal healthcare, and GE Financial salivates over privatizing Social Security.


I dont think so (none / 0) (#43)
by AlSmith on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:22:37 PM EST

Why do people always look for the most cloak and danger explanation?

GE IPO'd GE Financial into Genworth years ago. Disney has 137,000 employees, so they are probably just as interested in health care as anyone.

Which is the more plausible explanation? That Olbermann and Mathews are getting Execute Order 66 calls from GE Corporate? Or that they are a couple of partisans who got bored years ago with just delivering facts because thats just an entry level news job. Today all the journalist want to see themselves as shaping the news- not just reporting to us mush heads who then dont pick up on their subtle signals.


Do Your Research (none / 0) (#46)
by Petey on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:40:58 PM EST

"GE IPO'd GE Financial into Genworth years ago."

GE Financial spun off their life and mortgage insurance business only into Genworth.

GE still retains both commercial and personal financial divisions. The personal financial division is currently named "GE Money". General Electric's revenues from its financial businesses alone dwarf NBC's revenue by an order of magnitude.

"Disney has 137,000 employees, so they are probably just as interested in health care as anyone."

GE Healthcare is in the business of selling healthcare products. They produce more revenue and profits for GE than NBC does. This is more than slightly different than Disney or any other corporation that has employees.

"Why do people always look for the most cloak and danger explanation?"

Perhaps it's because "people" have actually looked at the financial figures and read about the long (50+ year) history of General Electric's attempt to sway American political discourse towards their business interests. For the past two decades, GE has specifically been on a jihad against universal healthcare and Social Security.

The financial figures are publicly available. Go check 'em out yourself. Again, General Electric gets less than 10% of their revenue from media and entertainment, while Disney, Time-Warner, CBS, and NewsCorp all get more than 90% of their revenue from media and entertainment.


Plausibility (none / 0) (#47)
by Petey on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:47:27 PM EST

"Which is the more plausible explanation? That Olbermann and Mathews are getting Execute Order 66 calls from GE Corporate? Or that they are a couple of partisans who got bored years ago with just delivering facts because thats just an entry level news job."

You don't find it the slightest bit odd that the "NBC family" was quite friendly to Clinton during the first 9 months of 2007, but when she unveiled her healthcare plan in September 2007, they turned on her with a fury within weeks?

We're not just talking about Matthews and Olbermann. Watch the midday newscasts sometimes. It doesn't matter who the anchor is.

Pew had a report out a couple of months back showing how NBC and MSNBC were consistently more negative towards Clinton than any other network by a very large margin.

What's the plausible explanation for that?


Finally (none / 0) (#49)
by Petey on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:04:39 PM EST

"Which is the more plausible explanation? That Olbermann and Mathews are getting Execute Order 66 calls from GE Corporate?"

And finally, there's a pretty famous (though obviously impossible to substantiate) story about how this exact thing happened in 1999.

General Electric CEO Jack Welch supposedly called Tim Russert and Chris Matthews into his office in early 2000 and told them that it was in GE's business interests to see George Bush elected President over Al Gore.

More easily substantiated is the story with multiple witnesses of Welch coming into the NBC election central on election eve 2000 and saying, "how much would I have to pay you to call the race for Bush?"


: Not substantiated (none / 0) (#56)
by AlSmith on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:23:38 AM EST

You do realize that that is an article posted on Waxmans' site in which the only evidence is coming from Waxman himself?
It is substantiate that Welch was there because that is apparently a long standing tradition of hosting an election party for corporate clients.
But every other allegation of fact is sourced only to Waxman himself who could not have any first hand knowledge of anything. And Waxman is the same person providing the interpertation of alleged events- which is generally a no no. So I really dont see any substantiation here at all.
So why do people find this kind of thing a more plausible explanation than that journalists simply being in the tank for their favorites and slanting their reporting and opinion pieces to convince the unwashed washes of the wisdom of their viewpoint?

It's too bad for the MSM (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by pie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:21:56 PM EST

that this stuff is the public record.

Tim Russert is a disgrace to journalism. He's hardly in a position to throw stones from the balcony of his glass house.

: Actually, (none / 0) (#21)
by pie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:36:56 PM EST

I left Tweety out of that comment.
He prolly doesn't have access to MTP transcripts and doesn't know how politics works.
:)

Once again (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Lahdee on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:22:08 PM EST

Tweety has proved to America that he is not trustworthy.
Now if he only cared about that...

Oh ha ha ha (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:22:46 PM EST

that's hilarious.

Tweety can remember what happened in 1990, but not in 2004?

Must be that premature Alzheimer's setting in.

Of course, the Obama quote (5.00 / 4) (#8)
by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:23:19 PM EST

is more damaging to Obama, first because it concerns the actual candidate, and not a former President who is not the candidate, and second because the entire premise of Obama's campaign is that he's supposedly creating a new kind of politics. I would imagine that the "new politics" no longer includes dissembling on Meet the Press.

the best part (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Kathy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:56:28 PM EST

is that there is actual footage on YouTube of a very hang-dog looking Obama telling folks that he's not qualified to be president and that he'd basically have to start campaigning, like, immediately for the job.


NO! (none / 0) (#39)
by ccpup on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:09:19 PM EST

Really? Wow. That doesn't even have to be made into a GOP commercial. All they need to do is lift the footage from YouTube!

Holy mackerel.


: it's great footage (none / 0) (#48)
by boredmpa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:55:59 PM EST

it'll be the lead in to at least one ad, and he'll be doing the voiceover while images of the challenge facing the president scroll across the screen. then on to mccain etc etc.
it's pretty funny imho.

He wasn't lying. He *will* serve out his term (5.00 / 4) (#9)
by goldberry on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:23:26 PM EST

He'll still be in the senate next year. But this does show that even he didn't think he was ready for The Show.
I really can't imagine who talked him into thinking this was a good idea.

: It reminds me of when (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:35:40 PM EST

Porter Goss said he was not qualified to run the FBI.
Then Bush put him in charge of...the FBI.
[bangs head on wall]

: Ted Kennedy and John Kerry (none / 0) (#51)
by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:15:06 PM EST

Both want access to the White House again. This is a candidate they can 'help' and mould etc

: Not exactly (none / 0) (#54)
by mm on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:34:16 PM EST

A Senate term is for 6 years. He would have to wait until 2010.
He served one whole year before launching his campaign for President.
You think we can get him to promise that if elected he'll serve out at least one term as POTUS before running for Emperor of the Universe?
I know he's in a hurry.

This is because (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by janarchy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:26:22 PM EST

Clinton = Bad
Obama = Good

Clintons = lying, untrustworthy political machine
Obama = love, peace, flowers, unity and a pony in every pot

Haven't you managed to process this yet?

: MMmmmmm.... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:38:12 PM EST

stewed Unity Pony....

: Pony in a pot? (none / 0) (#18)
by TomStewart on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:33:30 PM EST

Yuk.
Really, I'm not surprised that Matthews is selective in his criticism. He always has been, and he and NBC have degenerated together into the irrational mound of hatred they are today.
How many times does he have to get caught talking out of both sides of his mouth before he slinks off in shame?
The world may never know...

: keep the pony (none / 0) (#27)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:43:26 PM EST

Ill take the pot

Heh (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by Steve M on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:28:51 PM EST

I'm not going to set Hillary Clinton up as the paragon of honesty, but it's noteworthy that when she ran for the Senate in 2006, she expressly DECLINED to promise she wouldn't run for President. But of course, since that's an inconvenient fact, we'll just make "the Clintons" into liars by pointing to something that Bill said!

This is, of course, about the most standard type of political fib there is, and you really have to be stretching for faux outrage to bring it up at all. The only time it really upsets me is in excessive cases like Dennis Kucinich, who promised over and over during his 2006 reelection run that he would not run for President again, only to file his reelection papers THE NEXT DAY after securing his Congressional seat for another two years. That's sort of pushing it.

I do not care (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:30:33 PM EST

Frankly everyone knows that anyone who think they can win the Presidency will run.

If you are stupid enough to take any stock in such a promise then the problem is you.


Well (none / 0) (#30)
by Steve M on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:48:37 PM EST

Surely most people knew that Hillary would probably run, although she probably scores a few points for refusing to tell the easy lie.

With someone like Kucinich, who obviously has no chance to be elected President, it's sort of frustrating that voters have no way of knowing whether he really intends another novelty run or not. Whether you're going to have an absentee Congressman for much of the next two years is a legitimate issue.


: Hillary ran (none / 0) (#31)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:50:46 PM EST

but she promised NOT to run in 04. and she kept the promise.

As a NY'er (none / 0) (#29)
by themomcat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:45:41 PM EST

that voted for HRC twice, I fully expected that she would run for President this cycle. She kept her promise that she would serve out her first term which, no matter how she was pressed by the MSM, she did.


: you mean she waited (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by Kathy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:58:46 PM EST

until she had some more experience, and took some tough votes to prove her mettle?
Wow, that's really admirable.

Perception (none / 0) (#2)
by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:19:43 PM EST

is all. :)

This is NOT an Open Thread (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:28:50 PM EST

No Off topic comments.

he is just miffed (none / 0) (#15)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:30:17 PM EST

that she did not run for president in 04 so he could wail about that so he has to wail about something.
is anyone listening except Joke Line, Mike Barnicle and Roger Simon?
I dont think so.

Tweety, Tweety, Tweety! (none / 0) (#17)
by sarahfdavis on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:32:39 PM EST

You think us little folks in TV land don't KNOW that all politicians say this?! We're a little less dull than you think. If you really want to take down the Clintons, just go all out with your bullsh*t and make up some huge nasty scandal! We love us some scandal. The pathetic fake finger pointing is ridiculous. You're ridiculous!!!

Last night's "Hardball" (none / 0) (#20)
by cygnus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:36:19 PM EST

actually didn't suck. They addressed Obama's problems. It was inevitable that tonight Matthews would double-down on his lying about the Clintons. That's his career. Pathetic.

: saw that (none / 0) (#23)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:41:46 PM EST

I bettin he got a memo this morning.

You know what's interesting? (none / 0) (#24)
by madamab on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:41:58 PM EST

Russert: So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?

Even Timmeh was thinking Obama could fit in the VP slot. Hmmmmm....

tweety (none / 0) (#26)
by DJ on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:43:18 PM EST

why is he called tweety?

because he looks (none / 0) (#28)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:44:41 PM EST

like sylvesters little yellow friend.


: thanks (none / 0) (#36)
by DJ on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:01:16 PM EST

I get it now.

The (none / 0) (#32)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:53:24 PM EST

artificially-colored yellow hair.

I sometimes wonder if that particular hair dye should be taken off the market. It seems to destroy brain cells.


Everyone mentions the hair (none / 0) (#35)
by diplomatic on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 04:58:54 PM EST

But there's also something else that resembles Tweety bird in the cartoon: he won't shut up in that little cage and just goes on and on and on until Sylvester just wants him gone


: On the other hand (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:25:32 PM EST

Tweety bird the cartoon character is really clever, so there is definitely a place where the Matthews/Tweety analogy ends.

: lips (none / 0) (#37)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:05:21 PM EST

he hasnt got any.
its sort of beak like.
sometimes you can actually see venom dripping from where his lips should be.

He spits when he talks (none / 0) (#40)
by waldenpond on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:09:55 PM EST

just like Tweety.


actually (none / 0) (#41)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:10:30 PM EST

thats sylvester.


: He still spits when (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by waldenpond on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:21:42 PM EST

he talks. :) He's got it all... Sylvester and Tweety.

Hoping double standards is on topic... (none / 0) (#45)
by Oje on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:38:33 PM EST

Reading Somerby just now, I am struck by how short-sighted the counter argument against Clinton's primary-state-equals-general-election-victory claim. The Obama campaign and Obama bloggers have consistently argued that Obama brings states into play that Clinton cannot.

On what basis do they make that arugment? Caucuses and primaries (click thru to memo for quote):

After 45 contests, Senator Obama has won more delegates, twice as many states and territories, and more of the popular vote. He's won in every part of the country, and has scored victories among every segment of electorate.

This Obama campaign memo goes onto site polls, but the states it wants its recipients to think about are the caucus and primary states that Obama won.

Hmm, if Obama won twice as many states as Clinton in the primaries, is not the argument that primary states are no determinant of general election outcomes twice as powerful for Clinton?

You tube where Obama said he would not run (none / 0) (#53)
by Saul on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:30:18 PM EST

Good job. (none / 0) (#55)
by halstoon on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:15:31 PM EST

As hard a time as I give you, I have to point out when you've made a valid point.