The "Gore-ing" Of Hillary Clinton

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Anyone wondering if NBC believes in wall to wall coverage of Hillary Clinton, even as they declare the Dem nomination race over, need only read the daily transcript of KO Keith Olbermann's Obama Screedcast Against Clinton. The first 30 minutes of Monday's version were devoted to attacking Hillary Clinton. But this was the highlight moment:

[DANA MILBANK:] . . . But in the interview, as people have found out, well, basically the guts of the story are true and probably, this woman [Trina Bachtel], had she gotten better care, things would have turned out better. The problem is, when you‘re in this sort of exaggeration position as previously Al Gore and John Kerry found themselves in, it‘s very hard to escape this. So, even a fairly innocent one like this, is just one more piece on the pile.

(Emphasis mine.) Keith Olbermann, NBC, the Media and the "progressive blogs" are now doing to Hillary Clinton what the Media did to Al Gore in 2000. This is what the "progressive blogs" and the Obama News Network (NBC) are about. As eriposte shows, the progressive blogosphere and its news reader mascot (Olbermann) died this campaign season. May they be reborn soon. More . . .

The Howler writes:

. . . Why did the Post spend its time and resources checking those public records? We can’t answer that. But the pattern here is quite familiar to anyone who has watched this film about other Big Dems, especially about Candidate Gore. By their own admission, the press corps “fact-checked” quite selectively when it came to Candidates Bush and Gore—and they mind-read Gore quite thoroughly. This allowed them to tell the story they loved: Gore is a big liar, just like Bill Clinton. When we read Kornblut’s report last week, we suspected Clinton was now getting Gored—that the press corps was now working to churn a novel about her own vast lying. Does everybody get fact-checked this way? History, and current experience, say that they do not.

Second, pundits shouldn’t have spoken with certainty based on a single hospital’s unchecked report. This was a dumb thing for people like Matthews to do: Sometimes, hospital spokespersons don’t tell you the truth; sometimes, as in this case, they may not actually know the full story. But Matthews (and others) weren’t doing journalism; they were mainly retyping a favorite old novel. And so, like Clinton, they failed to fact-check their story thoroughly. They asserted far more than they knew.

(Emphasis supplied.) Read the whole thing.

NOTE - Comments closed.

< SUSA PA Poll: Clinton By 18 | Clinton, McCain And Petraeus >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    As you said yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:49:41 PM EST
    Bob Somerby looks prescient.

    He is fantastic. (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by ghost2 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:10:46 PM EST
    Bob Somerby was Al Gore's roommate in college.  I wish he had said to Al to speak up against Media treatment of Hillary, and how Michigan and Florida are treated.

    But the atmosphere is incredibly toxic.  The worst I have seen.  It's like the drumbeat to the War again.  There's a media hurricane, and any voice that dares speak into it will be ignored, ridiculed, and maligned.


    He is fantastic (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by delacarpa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:34:26 PM EST
    Gore remembers what he said in 2000:

    "This is so ironic that in 2000 Gore said that if the votes aren't counted in 2000 then years from
    now other votes won't be counted . He was right and read his words in a speech in 2000" and he should speak to this and hopefully he will at the right time and IMO the time is now.



    ??Roommate?? (none / 0) (#56)
    by mrjerbub on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:37:49 PM EST
    So was Tommy Lee Jones. Small world.

    Vanity Fair (none / 0) (#183)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:34:16 PM EST
    did a great article on the lies the media told about Gore:  LINK

    Oddly familiar tactics.  The problem is that when we let them do this to one dem, we tacitly allow them to do it to all dems.


    apparently, (none / 0) (#186)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:39:41 PM EST
    al had a tough time keeping roommates. :)

    Heh (none / 0) (#219)
    by mrjerbub on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:54:14 PM EST
    That was my sister's fav. I hated it.  ;-

    "Found themselves in" (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:51:41 PM EST
    Beautiful.  As usual, no mention that it was the dishonest and profoundly stupid work of the press that threw them into that position.

    I'm not sure about much in this life, but I am sure a Daily Howler mention is forthcoming.

    "Mistakes were made" (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:28:51 PM EST
    And are still being made, as Fineman admits.  But hey, since the MSM has decided that Clinton is an "exxagerator" it doesn't matter whether the "guts" of the story are true. Clinton is fair game, and all statements by her are presumed false until proven true.

    In the meantime, has anyone on NBC slammed McCain for his rosy statements on Iraq?  Has anyone on NBC slammed Obama for condoning the disenfranchisement of FLA and MI voters.

    I thought not.


    Whatever happened to (none / 0) (#70)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:50:49 PM EST
    the McCain lobbyist story? There were possible financial as well as sexual shenanigans.

    [cricket cricket cricket]

    And what about McCain's asserting "The surge is working, I don't care what anyone else thinks?" Doesn't that scream "crazy old man" to anyone?

    [cricket cricket cricket]


    Keith needs to drop his borrowed Murrow... (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Marco21 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:53:36 PM EST
    line from his show. Clearly, he no longer deserves to use it. Doing so insults Murrow's legacy and the truth itself.

    I found his anti Bush shtick (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:55:43 PM EST
    to be a daily copy of the blogs.  He does nothing original.  He has a demographic and he bloviates.  Murrow, took a position, he bucked the tide and he educated the viewers.  This will take a few reincarnations for Mr. Olberman.

    Olberman Has Always Been Boring (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by kaleidescope on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    Even when I agree with him.  But TV sucks in general.  What television news doesn't suck?

    worth watching (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by oldpro on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:28:25 PM EST
    for those who can receive Canadian TV...Manbridge on CBC News/The National (CBUT-Vancouver BC)

    on PBS...World News and News Hour with Jim Lehrer (although only the first 5-6 minutes are actual news...the rest is issues discussion)


    BBC World News (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by eleanora on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:12:41 PM EST
    is pretty good, covers international events in greater detail than US news as well. They run it on my local PBS station at 10pm weeknights and on BBC America.

    He (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:55:55 PM EST
    never deserved to use it. Never mind now. It was embarrassing before, now it's downright offensive.

    I hope he continues to use it... (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:11:27 PM EST
    ...it is just as absurd as if O'Reilly signed off with "and that's the way it is" and just demonstrates to everyone that O'Lbermann has become completely deluded by his own ego.  

    He doesn't deserve to (none / 0) (#224)
    by IKE on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:09:03 PM EST
    use it. Murrow believed in something and stood up for it. What the heck does Obamaman believes in? I respected him when he was neutral or at least pretended to be; now his entire show is delicated to bashing Clinton. He may not be the world's worst person, but he sure is the world's dumbest.

    A polls pollster and now punster (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:58:17 PM EST
    what's next? Sad sad deal how this has all gone down!  Shame on like.....almost everyone.  But Joe Scarborough did acknowledge the situation this morning.

    Be reborn? (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by ghost2 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:01:12 PM EST
    You know BTD, just before Alegre's strike diary, another long time user on DK wrote a good bye diary.  Someone said, I hope this blog improves and you'll be back.

    I said this: Why should she?? Why should we reward behavior like this and pretend they didn't exist?  

    This is the crunch time.  This is the time that character is on display.  Do you think I ever click on DK or TPM again?  They are lost to me forever.  

    You see, Josh was wrong on the war.  It was a bit of too much association with elites, a bit of cautiousness and lack of a good BS detector.  But I could forgive that.  It was an honest mistake.  

    There is no way I could forgive the behavior of kos and Marshall this time around.  No way.  This is intentional stabbing of an amazing woman.  This is the Gore-ing of Hillary Clinton.  This is about tipping the scale intentionally.  This is, in short, intentional hypocrisy.  Since they call themselves journalists, intentional hypocrisy is the same as corruption.

    There is no way I go back to those blogs.  Hopefully, TalkLeft, Taylor Marsh, The Confluence, mydd, and others continue their growth and replace those other pompous blogs.

    I agree ghost..... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:13:34 PM EST
    ...I just don't trust them anymore. In fact, in the future if I find myself agreeing with them I will take it as a sign to do some soul searching.

    I haven't been to DK in a long while now (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:31:49 PM EST
    I thought of going to the front page today because I figured someone would be live-blogging the Petraeus hearings.

    And then I decided I didn't need to give them the traffic. Besides, they may be too busy slamming Clinton to actually live-blog the hearings.


    I checked it out (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:54:53 PM EST
    Left when Hillary was testifying because it got stupid as usual.

    Same, (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by abfabdem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:36:25 PM EST
    I think of going to Kos and then decide, why give them the clicks.  A local Chicago site, Buzzflash, that I used to love and donate to, also got bizarre with huge headlines calling the Clintons racists.  Glad there are alternatives.  I will never go back to them after this. And now my money goes to the Clinton campaign which is far more gratifying right now!!

    There's no reason (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by nemo52 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:46:56 PM EST
    for me to ever go back.  I have found better, much more adult places, this blog among them.

    Totally agree...total hypocrisy and (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by lily15 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:19:20 PM EST
    corruption in a time of crisis should exclude them forever from anything but hacks and propagandists.  When push came to shove, they showed their true colors.  They should never get a pass...they should be punished by permanently losing readership.  Free market and all.

    It's Pretty Sad What the Heathers are Doing (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by kaleidescope on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    Given how they treated Bill Clinton over Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky and how they treated Wen Ho Lee, it's not very surprising, though. If she wasn't a Clinton, I'd put more of the blame on misogyny.  But there are different media rules for the Clintons and I think most of the "Gore treatment" has to do with irrational media hatred of all things Clinton.

    So, unfair as it is, Hillary Clinton has not been able to put the "credibility issue" to bed.  Is it possible this (mis)treatment will have no effect the continuing viability of Senator Clinton's candidacy?

    no effect? (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by ghost2 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:07:19 PM EST
    It has a tremendouos effect. If she wasn't Hillary, she'd be politically dead ten times over.  

    She is amazing.  No one could have survived this.  Give her a small opening, and she turns it into gold.

    Of course, I wish she had assembled a tougher campaign team.  She needs a Carville. Maggie Williams is great though.  I think she matches Hilllary in toughness.  


    The Heathers? (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:24:45 PM EST
    This is a funny blog today.  Remember what happened to the Heathers ;)

    EXACTLY (none / 0) (#197)
    by allimom99 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:56:03 PM EST

    What goes around comes around - gotta love that karma.

    the demographics of HRC and Obama (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Prabhata on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:05:29 PM EST
    skew the view most bloggers have.  Bloggers won't miss the visitors of their blogs that support HRC because we're a minority to their sites.  HRC's base is older blue collar working people, and yes, retired people.  Her base barely use email, and are not as likely to donate to candidates or read blogs online.

    I know where you're coming from (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:13:25 PM EST
    but there are lots of us HRC supporters who do not fit that mold.

    Namely: Women.

    A lot of the A-list progressive bloggers seem to forget the massive presence we have in the Democratic Party. And we do blog and use email.

    Obama's biggest mistake has been discounting and dismissing those voters, and some Obama bloggers have done the same. I will absolutely never go to those sites again. The misogyny and hatred there is unacceptable.


    Yes and not to mention (none / 0) (#182)
    by facta non verba on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:28:16 PM EST
    gay men and women as well. Never mind the Donnie McClurkin episode, Senator Obama seems to think that we should sit down and talk James Dobson and the FRC and negotiate. What do James Dobson and I have to talk about? Nothing, we are never going to see eye to eye. Obama has this penchant for telling people what they want to hear. It is all rather disconcerting.

    facta, you are right on the money (none / 0) (#187)
    by lookoverthere on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:45:04 PM EST
    Why in the world would any LGBT person want to unite with folks like Rev./Rep. James Meeks?

    What in the world would I possible have to say? "Nice tie, dude. And it's okay if you hate me and wish me dead---no worries"?


    This old f@$t (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:19:22 PM EST
    is not retired, is white collar worker and my kids call me to find out how to run anti-spam software.....and I run a corp network.

    So don't rule us out as online bloggers... And we email our displeasures to the media and elected officials.


    Not so sure about that (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:19:40 PM EST
    Any statistices that show that?

    The elderly use email a lot these days, and go online.  These are not your father's elderly <grin>


    Women the majority on the 'Net now (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:49:15 PM EST
    per some study I saw, so maybe.  Point is, the blog boyz started when it was mostly boyz and are being left behind now.  Just don't know it yet, but will.

    Hillary's Base (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by grouse on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:24:22 PM EST
    I can't speak for all of Hillary's base, but based on the "seniors" that support Hillary, and there are many of us, we use email thank you and read blogs and sometimes dare to post a comment!

    Hey! (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by mrjerbub on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:36:10 PM EST
    I resemble that remark  ;-

    It's not gonna stop. (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:09:44 PM EST
    That's a lot of negative coverage coming towards Hillary Clinton.  It isn't as though once she's out of the race our negative scandal mongers in the media will change their tone and not look for the next person to attack.  They won't be able to handle an Obama - McCain match up fairly.  This race is going to be dirty and the media will make it so.  

    Great catch BTD.  No way really to say "What Olbermann meant."  If he's a liberal, I don't know what I am.  If he can't see the part he plays in the media's destruction of liberal candidates, while claiming to be a liberal, shame on him.

    It's like domestic violence... (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by oldpro on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:47:06 PM EST
    the abuser almost never self-identifies and stays in denial as long as possible when confronted.

    Remember that Keith's contract was renewed (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by lily15 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:26:33 PM EST
    for millions of dollars and soon thereafter he turned from being fair to Hillary (remember the interview with her?) to despising her.  Keith is not a liberal.  Keith is a hack.  He has been paid off.

    Again, he did a 180 soon after his new contract was signed.  He built up his show with his anti Bush commentaries...and then got paid off...too convenient, I'd say.  The change was sudden and outrageous.


    "It's very hard to escape this"? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:10:24 PM EST
    "This" being KO, his buddies at MSNBC and in the blogosphere beating up on Hillary.  Talk about abdicating personal responsibility!  Keith is a victim of Hillary - he just can't help himself, any more than Tweety can stop those tingles going up his leg when he hears Obama.

    I'm hesitant to say this, b/c I know he's conservative and has been horrible to the Clintons in the past (see Wayne Barrett's recent piece in the Village Voice), but Joe Scarborough has been extremely fair to Hillary in recent weeks.  He almost seems to be turning into a fanboy.  His admiration for her came through clearly in the interview he conducted this morning.  For a battle-weary Hillary supporter, it was like a breath of fresh air.

    you can see the interview (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:15:19 PM EST
    at Taylor Marsh site.

    Thanks for that link! (none / 0) (#51)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:35:39 PM EST
    I sometimes have probs with videos on the MSNBC site, and this was one of them. But it works via other sites!  :)

    Nice interview.


    And... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by michitucky on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:18:04 PM EST
    Later in the show when Pat dicussed people approaching him in airports thanking him for being fair to Hillary.  Go figure!

    My first clue (5.00 / 7) (#33)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:23:24 PM EST
    that the tectonic plates had shifted underneath my feet was when I started agreeing with Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan on at least one or two points. Of course then they say something bats** crazy and I come back to my senses.

    And Pat Buchanan isn't on as much (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by lily15 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:29:40 PM EST
    Notice?  This is a set up by powerful GE, which owns NBC and is a big player in the defense industry.  Bob Somerby has it right.  DailyHowler.com is a must read for those that want to know the truth about the media.

    And (none / 0) (#129)
    by michitucky on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:35:48 PM EST
    Craig Crawford is MIA...

    That's right. Craig Crawford is disappeared. (none / 0) (#161)
    by lily15 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:02:58 PM EST
    And he was fair to Hillary.  Hard to escape this conspiracy.  It is a set up.  And Bob Somerby has been warning about it for a long time.  We should all take heed and fight back.

    Where is Media Matters on all this? (none / 0) (#166)
    by TearDownThisWall on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:07:21 PM EST
    Didn't Hillary start that site...or at least have something to to with the founding of MM?

    I go to Craig Crawford's blog (none / 0) (#194)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:51:35 PM EST
    to get my fix.  It's good -- and it's got video, so I still can actually listen to him being a sane (if funny with his breathiness) voice.

    Yep (none / 0) (#83)
    by Lou Grinzo on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:01:00 PM EST
    Every once in a while Joe or Pat loses control and veers into the reality based zone.  But they usually recover and zip right back to Fruitloopistan after just a few minutes.

    Rehab KO? (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by herb the verb on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:17:56 PM EST
    Why bother? The guy is a joke.

    The problem is that in 4-5 months Dkos, Captain Stubble, Huffy and all the rest will "graciously" invite all of us racist Hillary supporters back to give them our hits and our $$$$ while patting us low-lifes on the head and explaining just how lucky we are to have friends like them.

    You know what (and excuse my french) but

    F*CK THAT!

    I'm (insert word for livid)at how Hillary has been (insert word for poorly treated) on but even more (insert word for livid) at how WE, as faithful, dedicated, liberal DEMOCRATS have been (insert word for poorly treated) on.

    Nope, not ready to make nice. In fact, I have a different proposal for Obama and his (insert word for opposite of friendly and welcome) supporters. This proposal is that the Super Delegates should SAY RIGHT NOW THAT THEY WILL NOT SIGNAL SUPPORT FOR EITHER CANDIDATE UNTIL MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA ARE RESOLVED SINCE NEITHER CANDIDATE HAS THE MATH TO WIN WITHOUT THEM!

    I think that is an excellent idea. Imminently fair to all parties and I think that a fair and balanced Obama network should agree.  

    Not interested in KO anymore (none / 0) (#195)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:52:34 PM EST
    after reading of his treatment of women in his personal life, in addition to his allegedly professional life.

    Mad as Hell video update (5.00 / 13) (#31)
    by IndyRobin on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:22:05 PM EST
    Hi All,

    I'm IndyRobin and I made the "Mad as Hell" video along with my friend GeekLove. I'm stopping by to give a sincere thank you to all who have helped
    draw attention to this video. It was very difficult to do, but I simply could not take another single day of watching the ongoing MSM slaughter of Hillary without responding. I am sending this update as a thank you for your help.
    We have now 'gone viral" ( just learned what that meant yetsterday:) Please continue to send the video out, stop by YouTube and watch it... just watching it will keep it alive. Thanks again

    Video update: YES

    Honors for This Video:
    #17 - Most Discussed (Today)
    #2 - Most Discussed (Today) - News & Politics
    #17 - Most Discussed (This Week) - News & Politics
    #79 - Most Responded (Today)
    #7 - Most Viewed (Today) - News & Politics
    #49 - Top Favorites (Today)
    #1 - Top Favorites (Today) - News & Politics
    #11 - Top Favorites (This Week) - News & Politics
    #50 - Top Rated (Today)
    #3 - Top Rated (Today) - News & Politics
    #28 - Top Rated (This Week) - News & Politics

    1590 clicks from http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/7/13263/90098
    923 clicks from http://www.talkleft.com/
    879 clicks from http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/
    650 clicks from http://www.taylormarsh.com/
    431 clicks from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard...

    Terrific work (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by BDB on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:39:53 PM EST
    After seeing it elsewhere, I posted it at Corrente.

    Thank you for putting it together. You have a much stronger stomach than I to sit through the MSM hate-o-palooza.


    Thank you! (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Suma on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:51:28 PM EST
    Thank you so much (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by eleanora on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:10:54 PM EST
    for that video--I've sent links to everyone I know. If you need donations for hosting so that it could be downloaded easily and shared even more widely, I'd be delighted to contribute. Wonderful job, truly.

    Great Work!! (none / 0) (#112)
    by AmyinSC on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:20:45 PM EST
    Thank you so much - I posted it on my blog, too.  Really exceptional work, even if it was pretty hard to get through those first moments..>Thank you for documenting what has been happening to Clinton, and to women, during this campaign.

    It's well done (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by facta non verba on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:17:45 PM EST
    It was hard to watch the first time around but each successive viewing left me more energized and committed to this cause. Thanks.

    Thanks!! (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by abfabdem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:40:56 PM EST
    Your rock.  I sent it to several friends this morning and to a colunnist at the Sun Times who had an article today on sexism in the media.  

    Awesome!!!! (none / 0) (#222)
    by Imelda Blahnik2 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 07:40:50 PM EST

    Thank you SOOOO much for that video. It made me cry. It made me, well, mad as hell, not that I wasn't already mad as hell. But it was the latter part of the video ("I'm a b*tch") that I found so moving, and which was truly uplifting after all the misogynist trashing you cover in the first half. It really brought home to me the true, thorough, amazing gutsiness of Hillary Clinton, the depth and breadth of her stamina, her willingness to persist in the fact of terrible personal attacks and non-stop efforts at humiliation, and the level of her commitment to public life. I'm sure what she does is exciting....but you don't put yourself out there knowing you'll be attacked because it's fun. I was very moved.

    Thank you.  


    "Gore-ing" of Michelle Obama (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:28:25 PM EST
    Mrs. Obama is next if Senator Obama wins.  I for one, a Hillary supporter, will do everything I can to fight the "gore-ing" of Mrs. Obama should it become an issue in the GE.  We cannot let the MSM do this to any woman, especially a democrat.

    See the bloggingheads discussion about whether or not Michelle's "anger" will become a campaign issue.

    Ross Douthat of The Atlantic Monthly and Debra Dickerson of Mother Jones debate whether Michelle Obama could hurt her husband's campaign.

    Remember how they treated (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:31:31 PM EST
    the magnificent Teresa Hines Kerry?

    God, that woman was terrific. I'll never forget how when Bush supporters chanted "Four More Years" at a Kerry event, she quipped "They want four more years of hell!"

    Yet oooooh, she was "outspoken." EEEEEEKKKKK! Heaven forbid a First Lady should be more than a Laurabot Stepford Wife!


    I loved Teresa Heinz Kerry -- and (none / 0) (#196)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:54:47 PM EST
    was at one of those events where the despicable boyz went after her, but she handed it right back.  She was one of the reasons I voted for her husband.

    The "Hillary-ing" of Michelle Obama (none / 0) (#142)
    by dwmorris on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:42:08 PM EST
    Sorry ... but I think the better analogy here is Hillary Clinton.  The national press really started to work her over during the '92 campaign and it hasn't stopped since.  Michelle will almost certainly get the special "Hillary treatment" from the Republican attack machine if Barrack is the nominee.  It ain't going to be pretty.

    Sure (none / 0) (#149)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:47:05 PM EST
    Democratic women are ball-busters, masculine, cackling, etc.

    Democratic men are feminine, breck girls, elitist non-bowlers.

    Republican men are manly men who bbq, have a beer and are "real" (even if they were Andover cheerleaders).

    Republican women are ... ?


    Stepford wife-like. (none / 0) (#164)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:04:43 PM EST
    Please add snark to the above... (none / 0) (#165)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:06:11 PM EST
    was going to put it in the body of the post, but hit the wrong button.

    wives (none / 0) (#181)
    by boredmpa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:26:40 PM EST
    i know you were joking, but all the same I think stepford-wife like isn't correct.  After all, stepford wives as I understand the stereotype are active in the community culture completely and don't work--that's an image that no longer resonates with middle and lower class families where women ARE working and thus hurts the image of the republican nominee as an average joe.  

    So other than being trotted out for family pics and such, I don't see the stepford-ness being emphasized. Thus my somewhat snarky response below that they're invisible.


    That's according to some progressives (none / 0) (#173)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:15:26 PM EST
    And usually just about Laura Buth.  Actually I was going to say that, according to the MSM, Republican women are usually loveable mothers (Barbara Bush), or HAWT (Condi, Ann Coulter).  But it's not really standard at this point...

    invisible (none / 0) (#177)
    by boredmpa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:20:00 PM EST
    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:30:58 PM EST
    And "progresives" like you are one of the main reasons why that is so.

    Ah (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:53:11 PM EST
    I was wondering what type of Obama supporter you are.

    The Republican kind. thanks for the honesty.


    Sound crunchy con to me (none / 0) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:07:21 PM EST
    But you have nothing to do with the progressive movement. I was mistaking you with soemone else.

    sorry about that.


    Hmmm.... (none / 0) (#119)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:24:31 PM EST
    The media has consistently chosen to elevate Republicans over Democrats.  It really doesn't matter how great a Democratic candidate is at playing the media (or anything) if the media always has its thumb on the right scale.

    The media (none / 0) (#204)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:08:17 PM EST
    Made up Whitewater (see:  the Hunting of a President) and found common fodder with any number of crazy Arkansas conspiracy theorists.  And that wasn't some fringe American Specter - that was the Post and the Times. Not to mention that they even asked him about his "women problems" when it was a well-known rumor in Washington that GWHB had a long time paramour.  That little tidbit did not get nearly the coverage.  

    And even if they were slightly more fair to him in 1992 (debatable), they spent the next eight years trying to get him thrown in jail (or at least out of office).


    Tricks win elections but destroy nations. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:59:45 PM EST
    No, he still has few months (none / 0) (#86)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:04:53 PM EST
    You amaze me. (none / 0) (#160)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:01:59 PM EST
    I am willing to bet good money, Euros not dollars, (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by andrelee on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:35:53 PM EST
    that when all this winds up, the race, the election, it will be revealed that the OB campaign directly contacted Dkos, TPM, etc. and offered them something, who knows what, but something they wanted enough to bargain away their self-respect, credibility, and (professional) standing. Can you imagine that, Joe Scarborough is being...a....journalist, in regards to Clinton and not his regular Repug. self. Joe Scarborough for chrissakes.

    Caught up (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:37:16 PM EST
    They are caught up in being kingmakers and lost their original role: questioning all authority.  

    Bingo (none / 0) (#97)
    by Lou Grinzo on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:11:17 PM EST
    I strongly suspect that there was no contact between the Obama campaign and no deal of any sort.  The blogs simply decided they wanted to be Part Of A Major Event, so they piled on.

    I guess helping to elect a brilliant, dedicated Democrat president, who would just happen to be the first woman in that role, wasn't enough.


    complicated. (none / 0) (#168)
    by ghost2 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:09:18 PM EST
    I think politicians (and their advisors) are experts at schmoozing and manufacturing opinion.  Dave Axelrod has an astroturf company, which means he understands how media and manufacturing public opinion works and has elevated it to an art form.

    Remember, astroturf campaigns mimick a true grassroots campaign, but they are not crude, or they'll be found out very fast.  Christians evangelist political organizations did that too.  They would send letters to newspapers on behalf of "ordinary" citizens, which would get published.  With net and annonymity, it's much easier to do these things and cover your tracks.

    I still don't know how the initial seeding and contacts work.  My guess is that Axelrod initiated internet groups, facebook, and buzz.  Aggressively put together big rallies and drummed up attendance(I read a news account on this, that it was one thing the Obama campaign intentionally did), and also himself or someone high up in the campaign shmoozed with the like of kos and Marshall, and said what they wanted to hear.

    Before I had an opinion about any candidate in this race, I came across a link to the infamous 1984 remash video. It was either TPM or Kevin Drum, and the link post was very short, "someone emailed us this, what do you think?". When I clicked and watched the video, I was disgusted and appalled.  I couldn't believe that a democratic blog will link to this video, and help it go viral.  That's when my first doubts on blogsphere relationship with Hillary originated, and unfortunatly my hunch was proven right.


    BTW (none / 0) (#170)
    by ghost2 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:11:00 PM EST
    psychological studies indicate that people defend a lie much more vigorously if they have been paid very little for it.

    It's more than that (none / 0) (#185)
    by boredmpa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:36:31 PM EST
    The union support for Obama shows the depth of the political games in leftist land.  In my opinion, the unions went Obama because they have declining membership and he has a movement with young people.  On some level, I doubt their leadership cares if he wins as long as it leads to positive thoughts from young people about unions or an increase in membership and/or clout.  Unions and Bloggers and almost any interest group are out for themselves.  The only difference is the bloggers may have been too short sighted (whereas the unions were strategic).

    And not to engage in US union bashing, but the unions were against universal healthcare in the beginning because it took a negotiating point out of their control.  They also offered to cave on universal care in california if the governator would log roll on allowing unionization of a subgroup of health care workers.

    Unions voted for the "movement" because they saw clear long-term benefits.  Bloggers supported the "movement" because they saw short-term $$$ increases.


    If only it were that simple (none / 0) (#128)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:35:24 PM EST
    Nobody paid them off.  They lost their senses entirely voluntarily.

    Petraus hearings (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:39:19 PM EST
    Watching now as Tweatie and Anne acknowledge that Hillary is well versed and has a great deal of knowledge about military issues.  Gee, but then they say, well she did not make a big campaign pitch.  Is it maybe because she was professional?   I guess Obama will speak later.  

    Dr. Phil said that memory problems (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:41:07 PM EST
    like the sniper one, is really common and no big deal....for whats its worth...

    and Bosnia wasn't DisneyWorld (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:55:20 PM EST
      March 26, 1996
      Mrs. Clinton praises soldiers' efforts
      By The Associated Press

      MARKOVICI, Bosnia-Herzegovina - Protected by sharpshooters, Hillary Rodham Clinton swooped into a military zone by Black Hawk helicopter Monday to deliver a personal "thank you, thank you, thank you" to U.S. troops.
      "They're making a difference," the first lady said of the 18,500 Americans working as peacekeepers in Bosnia.
      Mrs. Clinton became the first presidential spouse since Eleanor Roosevelt to make such an extensive trip into what can be considered a hostile area, though others have visited hot spots.

    From "Living History"...
    Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children, though we did have time to meet them and their teachers and to learn how hard they had worked during the war to continue classes in any safe spot they could find...


    Yes (none / 0) (#65)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:47:13 PM EST
    "the one that got away" syndrome. ;-)

    Clinton v Obama = Gore v Bradley Race... (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:05:08 PM EST
    Bradley and Obama are very similar-- both attracted the same demographics, except for African Americans, which has obviously been huge for Obama. Bradley was designated the "chosen one" by the media, but despite almost all the positive coverage resting on Bradley and almost all the negative coverage resting on Gore,  Bradley was still unable to reach beyond a very narrow appeal of academics and a few moderates / liberal Republicans, like Obama when you look past his African American support.  

    I'm not diminishing in anyway Obama's African American support-- I'm just saying that if he didn't have it, his campaign would look alot like Bradley of 2000, who lost 19 straight and was unable to win a single contest.

    Good point (none / 0) (#133)
    by Manuel on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:37:10 PM EST
    Did anyone call on Bradley to quit that year for the good of the party?

    Yet (none / 0) (#189)
    by BlacknBlue on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:46:44 PM EST
    Obama is winning the white male vote. Why is that?

    OK... maybe not the perfect analogy... (none / 0) (#207)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:12:19 PM EST
    ...because Hillary is a woman and that has been a factor, but *I think* she has won white males in most of the big states, but not California.

    This is true (none / 0) (#220)
    by Shawn on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:34:00 PM EST
    Also, Bradley was relatively strong with white males - he won them outright in the only close state (NH) and ran even with them in some states (CT, NY) where he was otherwise landslided.

    Somerby (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Manuel on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:33:59 PM EST
    Someone upthread forecast a Daily Howler and here it is.

    Somerby is correct that we just accept this.  Far from fighting it, this season even the left blogs have joined in this kind of mindless storytelling.

    What we need to do is to stop supporting this kind of "journalism" with our money and time.  We can't ignore them, of course.  We need to remind them of why we won't be watching.

    Another thing we can do, particularly on the Internet is to reward those sites, such as this one, that provide thoughtful issue based analysis.

    No offense (none / 0) (#132)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:36:39 PM EST
    But did you read my post?

    Ooops (none / 0) (#140)
    by Manuel on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:41:21 PM EST
    Sorry.  Missed the part below the fold.

    MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by flashman on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:35:17 PM EST
    MSNBC=Misogynic Sexist Neanderthals Bashing Clinton.

    Sorry if I insluted neanderthals.

    More and more the left blogosphere. . . (4.80 / 5) (#8)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:58:26 PM EST
    is dominated by former Republicans (John Cole, Markos).  Although they call themselves independents or Democrats they are in fact Republicans without a party.  Too intelligent to stick with Republican policies they're trying to recreate the Republican political approach on the left.

    Unfortunately, they're not turning their new political machine against the Republicans.  It's still aimed at the Democrats.  If things continue this way, the Democratic Party will be a successful group of ex-Republican military figures.

    Add...... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by michitucky on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:13:29 PM EST
    Arianna to the list...And Ed Schultz on Radio.

    And (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by eric on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:15:23 PM EST
    Stephanie Miller on the radio.  And John Aravosis at Americablog.

    And (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by abfabdem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:43:28 PM EST
    Buzzflash in Chicago.

    But do check out . . . (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by abfabdem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:44:51 PM EST
    bartcop.  An Okie with a fun site and an ardent Hillary supporter from day one!!!

    As Somberby points out for us (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by standingup on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:23:56 PM EST
    the Left is getting the short side of the stick here:

    By the way: The mainstream press corps did this to Gore, far more than anyone else. Why do "career liberals" stay away from this tale? The conflict is blindingly obvious.

    To their credit, conservatives fought back against the press corps, starting in the 1960s. Liberals, it seems, never will. The mainstream press corps doesn't care about health care. Career liberals don't care who wins.

    Instead of uniting to fight against the common enemy in the press and focusing on issues, they set their sites on one of our own.    


    ROFLAO! (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:22:46 PM EST
    Geez man, just call em as you see em!  I'm calling it job security ;).... golden parachute ....excuse me now I must go crack the whip on my slacker husband before someone notices he isn't that great and messes up my retirement plans ;)

    Jeepers (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Traven on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:04:28 PM EST
    The first refuge of the scoundrel is not patriotism -- it's blaming the media for your troubles.  You all seem to forget that the self-same media were declaring John McCain dead last September and were writing off Obama as late as last October as Hillary waltzed her way to her "inevitable" nomination.  And KO's point is that if you're caught in several lies and exaggerations (Tuzla, etc.), you do put yourself in the position of being nailed when you tell a basically true story but get the details messed up.  Not that I'm going to convince anyone here of that.

    You are suspended (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:06:29 PM EST
    and recommended for bannning.

    Comment no further.


    Wow (none / 0) (#105)
    by Traven on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:15:58 PM EST
    Seriously?  I suppose that means you took "scoundrel" personally.  If that's the case, I apologize.  Was basically a turn on an old saying.

    What part of suspended (none / 0) (#155)
    by herb the verb on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:54:11 PM EST
    did you not get?

    Dude, send an email apology and follow the site rules which include suspending yourself when told to.


    or being a guest (none / 0) (#180)
    by herb the verb on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:21:24 PM EST
    in someone else's house.

    But you are right, this site is so much like Stalinism and the pograms. It is all just so unfair that one can't just chatter away and hijack +- 200 post limited threads with patent baloney or offensive BS.

    In fact, it is amazing that people come to this website at all, knowing that they risk being shot for insufficient courage to die on the front lines in Stalingrad. The tragedy, it's enough to make you cry, just break down and cccccrrrrrrryyyyyy.


    You are suspended (none / 0) (#203)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:03:32 PM EST
    Missing the point (none / 0) (#30)
    by Prabhata on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:20:55 PM EST
    No one here is blaming the media for HRC's troubles.  Salon.com just did an article that shows that HRC would be way up in delegates if the Dems used the same allocation as the Reps.  Her "troubles" exist only in the media and the blogs.  PA will go to HRC, as did OH and CA.  The point is that as Democrats we want the media to stop its practice of using unimportant details for their narrative of campaigns.  Btw, the media liked McCain nonstop, even during his rip period.

    In MSNBC's case (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:28:09 PM EST
    they responded to their perception that Clinton was waltzing her way to the nomination by ganging up on her at the debate at the end of October, and inviting/daring/encouraging Obama and Edwards to do the same. So while I don't blame the media entirely for her troubles since then, there is no question that MSNBC has gone way out of their way to show their preferences.

    I owe an Apology (1.00 / 1) (#103)
    by mattt on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:13:42 PM EST
    I was one of those who hit Hillary too hard when I said the Bachtel story had "no merit whatsoever."  It did have some merit - though I think people are now going a little too far in saying "It was true all along!"  It wasn't true, but there was some truth to it.  It still would have been far better if, before including this tale in Hillary's regular stump speech, her staff had tied the facts down a little better.  The episode is still, to me, an indicator of her campaign's low priority on winning the trust of the people.  With her negatives already at or over 50%, there's no way she can beat "maverick" press darling McCain in the general while this kind of playing loose with the facts works to confirm the reputation with which she's been saddled (unfairly or no) by the right wing noise machine.

    As for Hillary vs Al Gore...as shown in the book "What Liberal Media" and elsewhere, Gore was treated very unfairly by the press.  A key point to recall when considering the reputations of Gore and Hillary for exaggeration, and the degree to which the press is responsible for their electoral troubles, is that Gore never actually said he invented the internet.  Hillary, on the other hand, did actually say, several times, that she made a corkscrew landing into Tuzla while sitting on her flak jacket, before dashing across the tarmac under threat of sniper fire.

    Are You Saying Gore Never (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by BDB on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:20:57 PM EST
    in the course of his campaign, ever, said anything demonstrably untrue?  I find that very hard to believe since as great as I think Gore is, he is 1) a politician and 2) a human being.  

    What it seems to me that you're basically arguing is that the Gore Rules are perfectly okay, they simply were not accurately applied in a particular case (e.g. the internet statement).  When, in fact, I would argue that the Gore Rules are ridiculous.

    Either that or your argument is that, unlike Gore, Clinton deserves to have this impossible standard applied to her.  And I love how it's because of one misstatement! It's not the media's fault they beat Hillary Clinton, the b*tch deserved it!


    Where's the apology? (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by badger on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:48:07 PM EST
    I've written offers to purchase houses that had fewer contingencies than your post.

    And of course you totally miss the point that Hillary was not exaggerating to aggrandize herself, as Obama generally is in the "misstatements" he's made. She was using an anecdote to dramatize a real situation that many people in this country face, and exactly as it had been related to her.

    In other words, she was actually discussing an issue, and promoting a progressive point of view - something else Obama does much too little to suit me.

    Doesn't sound like an apology to me - way too much "b-b-but Hillary", and just shy of "Hillary made me do it!".


    MattT (none / 0) (#110)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:19:48 PM EST
    The Bachtel story was completely true and your attack on Hillary was a perfect example of Clinton Derangment Syndrome. the rest of your comment is more of the same as far as I can tell.

    Obama... (none / 0) (#135)
    by Marco21 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:38:21 PM EST
    has several times "misspoke" about the Kennedy's funding his father's relocation to the states, his not taking oil and lobbyist money, his war stance and so on - all ways he must be making winning the trust of the American people a high-priority in his campaign.

    But our fair and accurate media have been silent on these points. Same for McCain on his many gaffes and redoubtable falsehoods.

    Hillary's Bosnia comments? Non-stop, full-on daily assaults.

    It's about fairness, something the press and seemingly many Obama supporters feel Hillary doesn't deserve in any way, shape or form.


    Thanks for the link to The Left Coaster (none / 0) (#6)
    by Faust on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:58:16 PM EST
    Very nice article.

    This is SOP (none / 0) (#9)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:59:12 PM EST
    with any Democratic candidate.

    They still think Clinton can win, which is why they're doing their best to destroy her now, before she blows Obama out of the water in PA.

    Should Obama become the nominee, I fear a landslide for the white, Independent-ish, straight-talking, war hero, maverick McCain. Obama will be nothing but an America-hating Muslim by the time they are done with him. IMHO.

    Dana Milbank (none / 0) (#29)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:20:49 PM EST
    I am voting for the Democratic  nominee and I don't care who it is. I prefer a unity ticket. For the record, I think HRC would make a very good president. Maybe better than Bill.

    Your quote is from Dana Milbank.  Keith's question is legitimate, regardless of bias.  

    OLBERMANN:  All right.  Giving her that one, you still have Bosnia, you still have the "I was critical of Iraq first," you have the "Mark Penn is gone, but he`s not gone" thing.

    Is there a sense in the Clinton campaign that regardless of what happens in the campaign... they may have painted their candidate permanently in the terms you just described, sort of serial exaggerator?

    Forget the Mark Penn gone/not gone (that is inane, lets just be grateful he is gone).  Tuzla- the video is killer. No snipers, a girl reading poetry.    At least they took Gore out of context. The media hated Gore and they hate Hillary. Gore's problem is he apologized when he didn't need to. That is not HRC's problem as to the Tuzla video. The problem is the video.

    She was not the first to be critical of Iraq- unless you pick and choose your starting point- which is silly and makes her look silly.

    I love HRC  (always have) but this is awful politically. Do you doubt that the GOP will use the Gore play book with the Tuzla video out there, just because KO points this out? I don't.

    Credibility is not just the problem of the news media. She is in a trap of her own making and she ought to have known better.

    The first to be critical of Iraq statement plays right into this and it plays into the existing meme created by the "depends on the meaning of is" quote- which isn't Hillary's but one she will be tagged with fair or not. She can't afford to make mistakes like this. And these are her mistakes regardless of who points it out.

    I'm sorry but (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:25:03 PM EST
    this is not her fault.

    George Bush and his cronies lied 935 times about Iraq alone. The media was silent. They lie about the economy every day. Crickets. They lied about Katrina, 9/11 and warrantless wiretapping. Nothing to see here, move along.

    The media hates Democrats. Period.


    All of that is true but (none / 0) (#45)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:32:32 PM EST
    who put a gun to her head and made her make the sniper comments with the Tuzla video out there?

    That is no-ones fault but hers.

    Given we know the media is anti-Democrats, we saw what they did to Gore and Kerry, why did HRC put a loaded gun in their hands?


    This is sad (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:34:04 PM EST
    I am very sad about this. It was Gore's fault of course. And Kerry's. And in the future, it may be Obama's according to you. that is what you propose. Amazing.

    Please re-read what I said (none / 0) (#55)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:37:30 PM EST
    I pointed out Gore was taken out of context. That is not his fault.

    How should Democrats explain away the Tuzla video and who made Hillary make those remarks?


    Ah, I See (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by BDB on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:44:21 PM EST
    You don't disagree with the standard applied to Gore, only that it's application was unfair.  

    Good to know.


    No (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:47:15 PM EST
    Bad to know. I find the her most recent comment even worse.

    Taken out of context? (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:46:51 PM EST
    Oh suuure. The reality is is a hypertechnical reading of Gore's statement CAN lead to to finding some ambiguity that might support a damning interpretation.

    He should not have let that ambiguity exist.

    Your comments get worse. You must be joking.


    Neither of you have an answer (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:53:25 PM EST
    re  the Tuzla  video.

    You have no answer (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:55:20 PM EST
    for "I invented the Internet" by that standard.

    Or "Love Canal." Or whatever the latest smear is and will be.


    Yes I do actually (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:09:54 PM EST
    Gore did not actually say he invented the internet.

    Hillary actually did make the sniper statements and there is a video that appears to show there was no snipers at the airport when she landed and was greeted by a little girl reciting poetry.

    You can argue given the media's refusal to point out equally incredible McCain moments that the media is unfair to Democrats in general and Hillary in particular and I would whole heartedly agree.  


    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:23:31 PM EST
    What did Gore say? was there NO ambiguity? How about on Love Canal? Are you saying Dana Milbank lied about Gore? How about Kerry? And when it happens to Obama will you think it is fair?

    I find your commentary on this extremly absurd.


    Gore's remarks were with regard (none / 0) (#127)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:34:30 PM EST
    to sponsoring legislation which helped create the internet as we know it today. Possibly ambiguous, totally defensible.  

    Where's the ambiguity in tales of sniper fire where the video shows none?

    Yes I would say Dana Milbank lied about Gore. Did Hillary make the Tuzla remarks or not?

    If Obama says he was under sniper fire when video shows he was not, I will say the question is legitimate.

    I fully expect the media to go after Obama if he is the nominee.

    I am not arguing with you that the media is generally unfair to Democrats or to HRC.


    But by your standard (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Lena on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:56:24 PM EST
    (and this is for Molly), Gore DID indefensibly lie when he said that he went to a hurricane disaster area (can't remember which) with James Lee Witt, the director of FEMA. No doubt about it.

    It turned out that he went with Witt to a different disaster area at another time.

    So in fact, Gore must have deserved all the media scrutiny he got after his bald-faced "lie", just like HRC deserves the scrutiny she is receiving over the Tuzla "lie".

    It's interesting that Clinton, like Gore, also "lied" about a trip she took. The direct analogy is right there. If you found Gore's treatment by the media disgusting, you'd have to say the same thing about the media's treatment of HRC. Do you?

    I think Obama has, at this point, "lied" enough that he too is living in a glass house. That is, if the press cares to apply the same standard to him that it's applied to HRC and Gore.


    Which other trip did HRC take (none / 0) (#162)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:03:02 PM EST
    where she was under sniper fire?

     If she is confusing trips then I stand corrected (happily corrected, I might add). Otherwise, no Gore did not indefensibly lie re his hurricane trip.


    I have read in at least one source (none / 0) (#193)
    by nemo52 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:51:19 PM EST
    tht Hillary did take 3 trips to Bosnia, and that there may indeed have been snipers (whether firing or not I don't know) at one of them.

    I honestly hope you are right. (none / 0) (#201)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:02:06 PM EST
    Poldy would agree..... (none / 0) (#137)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:39:13 PM EST
    how exactly did the video show (none / 0) (#199)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:58:19 PM EST
    "there were no snipers at the airport"? did you expect them to stand up to be counted? just because, at that particular point, they weren't actually shooting at anyone, doesn't mean there weren't any there. the two are not, by definition, mutually inclusive.

    they may have been all around, just chose to remain inactive. possibly because of all the highly armed US military personnel hanging about?

    i don't know if there were or weren't any snipers there, neither do you or anyone else. you just assumed, as did everyone else, that because none shot at her and chelsea, none were there.

    those kinds of assumptions tend to result in a lovely headstone.


    I wish more people would make this point (none / 0) (#217)
    by tree on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:40:12 PM EST
    and also note that she said they "landed under sniper fire" which meant the plane was under fire as it came in for a landing, not that snipers were taking pot shots at people on the ground. The videos actually show a large contingent of army personnel grouped on the left side of the small ceremony. I don't think they were just milling about for their health. Most Americans get their ideas of what sniper attacks are like from television and movies. It ain't so in real life.

    The answer is that in her head it was the most (none / 0) (#146)
    by lily15 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:45:21 PM EST
    danger she had encountered. It felt dangerous in retrospect compared to her other travels. Memory is an interesting thing.  This is not that unusual. People remember things that didn't actually exist.  And eye witness testimony is also often inaccurate. Many studies on it. Hillary remembered one part of her trip to Bosnia  inaccurately...but what McCain said was for the purpose of misleading the public about the war. And what McCain did and said was contemporaneous.  Hillary was remembering a 10 year old incident. And the mistake was minor with no intention to further a war.

    I really want a President (none / 0) (#152)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:51:56 PM EST
    who can sort fact from fancy on issues involving combat zones and national security....

    Hardly a reasonable statement (none / 0) (#167)
    by standingup on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:09:13 PM EST
    when a president will be dealing with current situations instead of recalling an event that happened over ten years ago.  

    then what about McCains market statement (none / 0) (#188)
    by boredmpa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:46:27 PM EST
    Everyone conveniently forgets his rose-tinted glasses strolling in a market with a bullet proof vest and saying everything was okay and normal.

    He didn't have 10 years to let that sit in his brain before lying about it.  Or did he misspeak because he was told it was a safe/normal market?  But how can you say that when surrounded by US soldiers, US snipers, and (if I remember correctly) escorted by a tank.


    That would leave us with (none / 0) (#198)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:57:35 PM EST

    please (none / 0) (#214)
    by boredmpa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:43:51 PM EST
    I don't care how good your original troll was, i'm not wasting any more time on your comments.

    well, not really (none / 0) (#218)
    by tree on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:46:18 PM EST
    He's the one who thinks that he has foreign policy experience because he went to grade school in Indonesia.

      Thanks, but I'll take someone with a less than perfect memory of events from 12 years ago over someone who thinks he learned all he needs to know about foreign policy in kindergarten.


    Here's how (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:17:40 PM EST
    "Yes, Senator Clinton made a mistake about a trip she took over a decade ago.  While it was extremely dangerous, and she did have to sit in the bullet proof cockpit upon landing, and there were threats of sniper fire and gun ships patrolling for same, no snipers actually took a shot.  For that error, she apologized.

    "However, I would remind folks that just a year ago, Senator McCain took a trip to a Baghdad market under heavily fortified conditions while wearing a flak jacket and proclaimed that war torn city 'safe'.  All to continue a disasterous war.  

    "Fortunately, no one was hurt when Senator Clinton visited Bosnia.  In fact, we did not lose a single American life in combat in that conflict.  Can Senator McCain say the same about the Iraq war - which he insists he's prepared to continue for years and years?  Can he even say those vendors at that Baghdad market were not targed later because of media attention paid to it because of his political visit?"


    Yes, the McCain Baghdad market lie (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by lily15 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:39:31 PM EST
    What about that?  Every time they  bring up the Bosnia Hillary mistake, we should bring up McCain and the market lie.  Video of both. Same thing. Except McCain was doing it to propagate a lie about the war.  So McCain was far worse in intention.

    She can counter by showing McCain (none / 0) (#159)
    by abfabdem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:01:07 PM EST
    in his flak jacket waltzing through the market in Bagdad surrounded by security guards and saying it's safer than Indiana or whatever his exact quote was.

    My take on this (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:35:42 PM EST
    is that it was an honest mistake. She was probably terrified and in her mind, built it into something it was not.

    I just don't think it is possible to be 100% accurate in everything you say in public after 16 years of intense scrutiny. She is bound to misspeak every once in a while.

    And as for it being a major issue, she made fun of herself on SNL about it, so I don't doubt her ability to defuse it in the general.


    Excuse me (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:33:05 PM EST
    Your comment is one of the most disappointing I have ever read.

    I thought better of you Molly Bloom.

    The question was NOT fair and elicited the Milbank answer desired. I am frankly, shocked that you would think it fair. It makes me question your judgment on these matters as nothing ever has.

    Indeed, it was easily the most unfair segment of the show.


    I'm sorry to have disappointed you (none / 0) (#69)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:49:13 PM EST
    I'll stipulate the segment was unfair. Do you seriously doubt that the Tuzla video will be used against her? I don't. Given that, don't you think her first to criticisize Iraq statement plays into the wrong meme at the wrong time?

     I don't doubt the Wright video will be used against Obama. I don't doubt Obama will face similar bias about something equally stupid eventually if he is the nominee. I don't expect my candidate to be perfect. I only ask that they not give the media a loaded gun.


    The Wright videos are not loaded guns, (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:54:41 PM EST
    they're cannons.

    True but not relevant. (none / 0) (#89)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:06:11 PM EST
    why not relevant? (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:07:52 PM EST
    Two campaign mistakes don't make a right (none / 0) (#120)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:25:18 PM EST
    Yes you're on the right (none / 0) (#144)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:44:08 PM EST
    track yes Tuzla is a problem yes it is different yes all canidates will have to fight it yes the video is troublesome yes....

    Your candidate (none / 0) (#101)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:13:01 PM EST
    has handed the media loaded cannons. I thought you said you don't want your candidate to do so.

    He is only my candidate if he wins the nomination (none / 0) (#116)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:23:34 PM EST
    You assume much. Don't.

    I'm only taking your statements (none / 0) (#123)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:28:15 PM EST
    at face value.

    You said what you didn't want your candidate to do, yet Obama has already done it. You obviously think Hillary has done so as well.

    Are you voting for Nader or McCain?


    No you are twisting my statements (none / 0) (#134)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:37:45 PM EST
    and not looking very good doing it.

    I already stated that I will vote for the DEMOCRATIC nominee. The fact that I don't want the candidate handed loaded guns to a media which is anti-Democratic candidates is not mutually exclusive to my position.

    You are out of your league here.  


    I am not twisting your words. (none / 0) (#147)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:46:20 PM EST
    You have said repeatedly that the Democratic candidate should not hand loaded guns to the media. I feel that Obama has done so, and you agree with me. So how will you justify voting for him if he is the nominee?

    My point is that I don't think we should blame the victims here. Yes, HRC misspoke on Tuzla, but the standards that you are advocating are unrealistic. No Democratic nominee could be held to them.


    I am sorry, you are descending to (none / 0) (#158)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:58:01 PM EST
    JimakaPPJ level. You are relatively new here, so I should tell you that is not a compliment.  Stop before you get further behind.

    For the umpteenth time, I will vote for the Democratic nominee, regardless of who it is. This means I will not vote for McCain or Nadar. Is this clear enough for you? This position is not mutually exclusive to my statement that I prefer my candidate not hand a loaded gun. This means loaded gun or not I will vote for HRC if she is the nominee. Happily, I will add.

    Now I am sure your head is about to explode. But I am sure if you reflect upon the meaning of mutually exclusive, it will occur to you that my statements are not mutually exclusive and when you review your laughable attempts to pin me down via some obtuse attempt at cross examination you will be suitably embarassed.

    I repeat you are out of your league. Give it up.


    Seems to me (none / 0) (#176)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:16:55 PM EST
    you are the one descending to personal attacks.

    I am simply making the point that neither Democratic nominee can meet the criteria you are establishing.


    What criteria? (none / 0) (#192)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:50:14 PM EST
    preference for not shooting oneself in the foot is not criteria for my voting or not voting Democratic in the fall.  You point is meaningless, especially given I said at the outset  I would be voting Democratic in the fall. Period.

    Do you feel better making the childish argument, that "I know Hillary is, but Barack is too?" What do you suppose you have added to this discussion?


    You really don't get where I'm coming from on this (none / 0) (#205)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:10:23 PM EST
    but that's okay.

    I don't agree with your premise that Hillary shot herself in the foot. I don't think there is any way that any Democratic candidate can avoid the press being crazy and hostile no matter what they do.

    How about we just agree to disagree and get over it. Deal?


    Done. (none / 0) (#208)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:14:06 PM EST
    I am old and crotchety and took incoming fire.


    I don't think there is any way that any Democratic candidate can avoid the press being crazy and hostile no matter what they do.

    I can and do endorse.


    Cool. :-) (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:22:46 PM EST
    I am middle-aged and feisty, so I can relate. I am sure I will be crotchety when I'm a bit older. :-)

    Here's how (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:13:32 PM EST
    First of all, she already said she misspoke. I don't know how you keep using something against someone for 6 months when they say "Hey. I give - I was wrong."

    Plus, there are these accounts, where there's enough truth to the story, it would be hard to use a full-out attack:

    "Hillary was 'protected by sharpshooters' in a 'military zone' when she visited troops in Bosnia. "Protected by sharpshooters, Hillary Rodham Clinton swooped into a military zone by Black Hawk helicopter Monday to deliver a personal 'thank you, thank you, thank you' to U.S. troops. 'They're making a difference,' the first lady said of the 18,500 Americans working as peacekeepers in Bosnia. Mrs. Clinton became the first presidential spouse since Eleanor Roosevelt to make such an extensive trip into what can be considered a hostile area, though others have visited hot spots..." [Charleston Gazette, 3/26/96]"

    But even if she takes a body blow from this, she still has all those flag officers endorsing her for her foreign policy / military knowledge (which would be a slap to the former POW) and she knows the difference between Shia and Sunni Iraqis.


    Exactly. (none / 0) (#179)
    by nemo52 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:20:59 PM EST
    Asked and answered.

    I do not doubt MANY THINGS (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:54:27 PM EST
    about politics and the Media.

    I do not atack Democrats because they are treated unfairly because "that is the way things are." you just did. Hell, you just wrote it was FAIR. That was just plain wrong.


    No I said the question was legitimate (none / 0) (#88)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:05:47 PM EST
    In the sense that we know both the press and the GOP is gunning for her, is she harming herslf? That strikes me as a legitimate question.

    Legitimate means what to you now? (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:08:42 PM EST
    The question was illegitimate as it was unfair imo.

    Have words lost all meaning?


    You seriously don't think it is legit to (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:22:33 PM EST
    ask after Tuzla, if the first to criticize statement is puts her into a trap?

    Words have not lost their meaning.

     Fair means to be equitable or just.

    adjective |liˈjitəmit|
    conforming to the law or to rules : his claims to legitimate authority. See note at genuine .
    * able to be defended with logic or justification : a legitimate excuse for being late.

    Given the media is gunning for HRC, given the Tuzla video, I'd say the question is defendable under the circumstances.


    BTW (none / 0) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:09:30 PM EST
    IF Olbermann admitted that HE WAS GUNNING FOR HEr, I missed it.

    No, I find your comments getting even more incomprehensible to me.


    And the McCain Baghdad market video (none / 0) (#151)
    by lily15 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:48:21 PM EST
    will be the response.

    Do You Doubt (5.00 / 11) (#47)
    by BDB on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:33:28 PM EST
    That the media will suddenly discover Obama's exaggeration about the role Selma played in bringing his parents together or the Kennedys' played?  Will they realize the nuclear energy legislation he told Iowa voters he passed, did not - in fact pass?  That he tells little lies and exaggerations all over the place, too?  Like the one about him not taking money from oil companies when, in fact, it's illegal for any candidate to take money from oil companies, but he has two oil executives bundling for him?  Or his denial in a debate that a lobbyist was running his NH campaign when a lobbyist was running his NH campaig?  Or his denial in a debate that he once advocated single payer healthcare when he once advocated single payer healthcare (speaking of damning videos)?

    Look, all politicians do this.  It is impossible to campaign for a year and not misstate, exaggerate or spin some fact that, if that's all you focus on, makes the person look like a serial liar.  Clinton has not been worse about this than Obama has, she just gets called on every possible misstatement, even when she's telling the truth!

    The problem is that instead of pushing back against this ridiculous standard - which will never, ever be applied to McCain - the Obama folks (and admittedly some Hillary people) adopt it as their own.  When the standard itself is ridiculous and when it ALWAYS hurts the democratic candidate.  ALWAYS.  

    And, btw, Clinton might not be thought of as a liar by the public (and won't that come back to haunt us if she pulls this thing out), if Barack "Never Goes Negative" Obama hadn't been calling her a liar since at least October, often on this kind of parsing crap.  But, of course, it's Clinton who is negative and divisive and hurting our chances for November.  


    Easy response to the Tuzla video (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:41:09 PM EST
    in the GE is the even worse video of McCain's "casual market stroll" in Baghdad with 100 armed guards and close in helicopter support.

    The Tuzla thing is a non-issue.  I would use that tape myself if I were her - the whole news story makes her look good - visiting the soldiers in the war-zone hospital, the reporter showing how close they were to the hills with the snipers.  All of the soldiers at the airport are wearing armor and helmets, and she has a bare head and a raincoat.  Anyone seeing the whole thing can understand her translating the nervousness she probably felt into a typical war-story exaggeration.  She is certainly not the first person to ever do that.  Obamafans can go nuts with it, she certainly handed them the bat to beat her with, but I don't think average people think it is all that bad.


    You have to pick & choose! (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by mrjerbub on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:47:59 PM EST
    "She was not the first to be critical of Iraq- unless you pick and choose your starting point- which is silly and makes her look silly."
    She is talking about while serving as a senator. Actual floor debate, not some press release or stump speech.

    The important vs the unimportant (none / 0) (#44)
    by Prabhata on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:32:30 PM EST
    Has Bush been treated to the same level scrutiny about his lies, and forget about the big one, WMDs? NO

    My point is why is the accuracy rule for HRC or Gore or Kerry somehow different?


    Because the media hates Democrats (none / 0) (#50)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:34:30 PM EST
    That doesn't excuse putting a loaded gun in the media's hands. We have to play the hand we are dealt and its not fair. But it is, what it is.

    The point is Dems don't put a loaded (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:25:41 PM EST
    guns in their hands. They form a loaded gun out of nothing. It doesn't matter what is said or not said. They have a narrative they perpetuate regardless and they get away with it because the Dems are spineless and, as long as they are not the object of the narrative, they will do nothing to stop it. Hillary is taking the heat for everyone including Obama.

    i wouldn't bet the rent (none / 0) (#59)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:40:43 PM EST
    money on it BTD:

    May they be reborn soon.

    too far gone, too far gone.

    Do you doubt that the GOP will use the Gore play book with the Tuzla video out there, just because KO points this out? I don't.

    nope, not at all. however, i also have no doubts about sen. clinton's unique ability to withstand the repub/right-wingnut smear machine, she's been doing it for 16 years. sen. obama, not so much.

    you completely overlook the fact that sen. obama is fresh meat (really fresh, who all knows what else is going to come tumbling out of his closet?), raw and bloody for the shredding by the media (who'll turn on him the instant he's the dem nominee, should that be the case.) and said smear machines. bet on it.

    Call Karl and ask (none / 0) (#104)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:15:42 PM EST
    He has had a year's start already.

    This is my cincern EXACTLY. (none / 0) (#213)
    by allimom99 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:24:04 PM EST
    If he hadn't let his ambition get the better of him, he could have built up a solid record in the Senate (honoring his promise to the people of Illinois) AND put some distance between himself and those associates who are giving people fits.

    Instead he had to have it NOW - he couldn't possibly have spent a little time paying his dues. His history is of running for the next office before he even has his boxes unpacked in the present one. Now if he's the nominee and it comes back to bite him, we ALL lose, the Supreme Court, the war, everything. So he could have his shot NOW.  


    Why They Defend The Gore-ing (none / 0) (#68)
    by BDB on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:49:09 PM EST
    If you want to know why so many "progressive" bloggers defend NBC's pathetic coverage of Hillary Clinton and insist that it's perfectly fair to Gore her because unlike Gore she deserves it, you need look no further than the post directly following this one on Talk Left's front page - "SUSA PA Poll: Clinton by 18".

    Different ideas of progressive (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:56:08 PM EST
    I think we were all agreeing during the Bush years.  We made up a definition of progressive .  We each made our definition with the common theme being Bush and the war.  But, I think we all come from different core political values that we have not aired.  This is a clash, a clash of what a progressive is and whether this is a correct grouping.  I never thought I would see progressives diminish lower income and working class Americans.  

    This makes sense... (none / 0) (#93)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:08:50 PM EST
    there've been rumblings off/on for the past year or two. But the main focus has been on the admin...

    Skex, you are now suspended (none / 0) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:20:39 PM EST
    until Firday and are a candidate for banning.

    Comment again and I will ask Jeralyn to ban you.


    Yes, Stellaaa... (none / 0) (#125)
    by oldpro on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:33:44 PM EST
    ...most depressing of all is class warfare within the party and from supporters of one Democratic candidate against the supporters of another.  I expected the sexism but I did not expect classism.

    And women, (none / 0) (#169)
    by abfabdem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:09:37 PM EST
    especially older women.

    Skex (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:04:43 PM EST
    You are suspended. Do not comment again until Thursday.

    Carol Costello on CNN (none / 0) (#141)
    by oldpro on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:42:04 PM EST
    just did a mini report on AA supporters of Hillary and the problems/pressures they are dealing with from other AAs who demand they support Obama or be called race traitors.  The AA male commentator (name escapes me) upped the ante by mentioning with astonishment, some AAs who get death threats over supporting Hillary.

    This is why the race issue has worried me all along in this contest.  It could easily split the party for years to come.  Talk about a gift to the Republicans who couldn't earn AA support...

    Are you incapable of using e-mail? (none / 0) (#153)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:52:04 PM EST

    To whom is this addressed? (none / 0) (#226)
    by oldpro on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:50:38 PM EST
    It's not attached to my email as a response but it follows mine, so just in case...I'm asking...

    I'm perplexed...


    It is not about playing the (none / 0) (#154)
    by leis on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:52:50 PM EST
    media game; it is about being PLAYED by the media.

    One thing is for sure if we, (none / 0) (#172)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:14:33 PM EST
    and by we I mean those of us who believe in liberal values, play the media game in order to win and do things to win at all cost then we become no better than those we are trying to replace.  In 2006 the Democratic party ran some very conservative candidates in order to gain a numerical majority now we pay the consequences in social and economical issues.  My opinion is that when you compromise who your are you loose your reason for being.  If we want to defend women's rights, GLBT rights; immigrants and those things we have always stood for we best be careful about who we bring into our fold lest the next time we look the enemy is us.

    Yeah but in my view if I win by (none / 0) (#223)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:02:53 PM EST
    becoming like them I didn't win.  It's like giving up your civil liberties to fight terrorism.

    "May they be reborn soon..."? (none / 0) (#175)
    by Andre on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:16:05 PM EST
    Certainly you jest.   This is how I see it: they made their decisions, and if Obama gets in, there will be no substantive health care initiative. Even Elizabeth Edwards has said the HRC's HC plan is the better plan, and what's more, HRC has the experience to bring forth a substantive plan.   These Obama bloggers know this, yet they have slashed and burned HRC.  I've given them my attention for six years now (some of them), and yet they have cast their lot with a non-progressive IMO.  They will not get any more of my attention.

    "experience" (none / 0) (#225)
    by diogenes on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:33:51 PM EST
    The only experience that Hillary has in enacting health plans was in 1994.  We all know what a fiasco that was.

    Frank Rich "Gored" Gore too (none / 0) (#190)
    by catfish on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:48:43 PM EST
    people forget.

    The right wing has taken over. (none / 0) (#200)
    by lentinel on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:59:26 PM EST
    Things that the right wing hates:

    Hillary Clinton.
    Bill Clinton.
    Ralph Nader.

    And where do you read the most vile, abusive and demeaning verbiage leveled at these people? The "progressive" blogs.

    Don't forget... (none / 0) (#211)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:21:56 PM EST
    The DNC, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid

    It's not just Clinton and Gore (none / 0) (#209)
    by dianem on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:19:57 PM EST
    ...or even them and Kerry. Remember "Memo-gate" (or "Rather-gate", if you prefer)? Dan Rather's reputation was destroyed over one story that was indusputably true. The "fake" memo's were never shown to actually be fake, although most people are not aware of that. Initial reports about the memo's being fake, planted by right-wing power-brokers through the internet, were widely spread.  When subsequent analysis indicated that the intial reports were overblown, and the memo's certainly reflected the truth regardless, and that the producer's HAD checked them out, the story became "well, they should have dug deeper". Nobody seemed to think about the fact that the people investigating this and reporting on the scandal had only dug as deep as a little web-surfing would take them. The blame was firmly placed on the victims of the slander, and the story was turned from Bush to Rather.

    That's why I think that the right wing is behind this. They know that they can beat Obama. They aren't (or, at least, weren't) sure they could beat Clinton. They had to take her down. And they succeeded, not by taking her out obviously, but by planting ideas among progressives and getting them to do their dirty work. It was, once again, a masterful campaign strategy. It will be interesting to see what they do to Obama in the next few months. They would never have taken out Clinton if they didn't have an iron-clad plan to finish off Obama before the election.

    bilbo and the ring (none / 0) (#221)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 07:16:56 PM EST
    OK, maybe this is just me, but when I saw that segment (referenced in the post) between KO and Dana, I could swear I saw them each look pale, have elongated teeth, and really to be reaching for the ring, kind of like Bilbo was when he saw the ring around Frodo's neck. I think they make all this noise because they think Hillary still has the ring and they want it, or want Obama to have it. OK, maybe that was just in my head. :-)