Hillary Takes On The Media

Hillary Clinton is running this ad in Oregon:

It seems a good one to me.

By Big Tent Democrat

< The Logic Of Clinton's Argument To the Superdelegates | Ted Kennedy Hospitalized With Stroke Symptoms >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    A good one (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Lahdee on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:22:42 AM EST
    She reminds Oregon voters that she voted against Cheney's energy plan and supports Health care for all while not disparaging her opponent.
    Good message, positive message.

    she's THE ONE! (none / 0) (#23)
    by Josey on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:48:43 AM EST
    I like that!

    Nice ad (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Steve M on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:24:12 AM EST
    By the way, is LNG bad?  Seems like a good way to get us off foreign oil.

    LNG wasn't the issue (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by felizarte on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:29:47 AM EST
    It was taking away the State's right to decide where processing/collection sites should be located.

    Obama voted with the Repubs on this-- (none / 0) (#20)
    by jawbone on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:43:51 AM EST
    Cheney energy bill, by the party of states' rights which takes away states' rights to decide whether, where pipelines will go.

    in the Coast Guard (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by OldCoastie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:31:25 AM EST
    we used to escort the tankers in to Boston... horribly dangerous and very vulnerable to terrorist attack. I think the terminals can be an ecological nightmare.

    I have a feeling if Oregonians knew about BO's affirmative vote on Cheney's energy bill, they would be significantly less enthused about him.


    LNG didn't get past (none / 0) (#21)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:45:11 AM EST
    the community input stage in our community.  We are hurting for jobs and a tax base, and our county refuses to allow any industry here for 'environmental' reasons but wanted an LNG plant.  They think an LNG plant goes well with a tourist community.  Morons.

    Might be OT -- but see .. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by BostonIndependent on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:41:55 AM EST
    CNG -- which is different from LNG (the former is compressed, the latter -- liquefied), and could help. LNG is more expensive -- the issue at play here is the use of the Oregon coast, costs and eminent domain issues for pipelines.

    I was in AP recently, and CNG vehicles seem to have had a dramatic effect (my perception -- I'm not a scientist that studies this) on reducing smog around major Asian cities. I was quite surprised.. because last week I went to Phoenix when it was over 100 degrees and the smog was like a brown haze when our plane landed reminding me of how cities in India or Malaysia used to look a few years ago.

    So.. while I doubt either of these will affect the environment at scale, long term, I think CNG might deserve a look. I also think that smaller vehicles -- instead of 4-seater sedans will reduce the footprint at scale.


    It doesn't require (none / 0) (#31)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:02:36 PM EST
    the intensive refining that crude does.

    We import quite a bit of natural gas, although we produce it domestically.


    Might be OT -- but see (none / 0) (#70)
    by willhe on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:02:22 PM EST
    It is not possible that the temperature was 100 F when you were in Phoenix. It has not been that hot yet. Tomorrow,  5/18/08, is the first predicted date for that temperature.

    MSM and Obama make their own reality (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by nellre on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:28:39 AM EST
    He couldn't "put her away" via the primary process, so he, with the help of the MSM, have just pretended she does not exist since WV.

    I feel like Ripley after 50 years of hybernation... have IQs suddenly dropped while I was away?

    David Gregory actually laughed when he asked (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by jawbone on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:49:08 AM EST
    about the "effect of her win in WV" -- and his guests replied in kind that John Edwards was the tsunami which pushed her off the news and drowned the impact of her win (41 points is huge in any primary, any voting).

    Some cynics are fond of saying the voters get the government they deserve, but, with the kind of press coverage we've had going on almost a quarter century, I think it's amazing (in a good way) that voters are able to see through so much of the fog they're put in by the MCM. Plus, the MCMers put out lots worse things than fog....


    Gregory is simply confirming (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by felizarte on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:58:13 AM EST
    that the reason for John Edward's endorsement is to drive the W. Virginia walloping Obama got off the news cycle.  These people in the media have forgotten that the first duty of the free press is to inform the people so that they can make informed decisions on issues that affect their lives.

    Sad, sad! To see how much many members of the media have shirked their duty.


    One irony (none / 0) (#38)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:16:15 PM EST
    Edwards isn't even a SD.

    Which confirms that Edwards is but.. (none / 0) (#54)
    by AX10 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:45:43 PM EST
    a mere sleazy political-type.

    David Gregory Has Turned Out To Be A Great (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:59:33 AM EST
    big putz.  I remember when he actually was asking
    bush some tough questions.  Of course, he got beat down and now he would rather make fun of people than be a real journalist.

    He also laughed, laughed! when Susan (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by zfran on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    Molonari(sp) on his show was speaking of how Hillary was being treated and mentioned the  "sweetie" comment from Obama. HE LAUGHED!! I wonder if they get paid more from MSNBC the more they ridicule her?!

    And, one of the Obama journalists/supporter (none / 0) (#47)
    by zfran on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:03:05 PM EST
    mentioned that Sen. Obama would not lose the women's vote because of the SCOTUS!!!! (and he said it with a smile on his face)

    Sadly for these schmucks... (none / 0) (#56)
    by AX10 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:50:03 PM EST
    my Democratic mother does not believe in abortion, so the SCOTUS is less of an issue for her.

    He is experiencing his own Obama rise (none / 0) (#50)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:25:37 PM EST
    David Gregory has become the NBC/MSNBC darling with his guest hosting on the Today show, his new program Race for the WH, and rumor that he's being groomed to replace Chris Matthews.

    His attitude vividly resembles the Obama "glow".


    I loathe myself for briefly finding him hot (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Ellie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:29:48 PM EST
    Fortunately I recovered long before he was popping and locking onstage with Karl Rove.

    I can only assume it was some weird hormonal malfunction, too long between foot-rubs, chocs or other body & soul balancing necessities.

    (I've given instructions to friends, sisters, aunts to take me out somewhere and just shoot me if such a thing happens again. Beyond reasonably, objectively hot eye-candy, that is.)


    Yeh, Anderson Cooper's Armanis (none / 0) (#67)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:32:50 PM EST
    got to me for a while, too.  Until I saw the great comic Kathy Griffin's riff on it.  And then I remembered that my ex dresses well, too.

    I think I will follow your fine example and get women friends together to make a pact that we will swear to remind ourselves that even eye candy can fool us, what with our bifocals now.


    This might be OT (none / 0) (#39)
    by felizarte on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:17:35 PM EST
    but because Gregory mentioned John Edwards, and because Edwards is pretty much out of the limelight after his cameo appearance presumably to drive W.V. blowout from the headlines:

    I wonder if Elizabeth Edwards is now saying to John:  I TOLD YOU SO!


    "Earth on her coffin" (none / 0) (#61)
    by bridget on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:51:25 PM EST
    I just read a German article in the "kurier" loudly pronouncing that it was all over for Hillary esp. after the Edwards endorsement. The article could have been written by an Obama blogger. It was shockingly biased.

    The writer, Frank Brandmaier, quoted HuffPost's Roy Sekoff. He must have seen a clip from the Abrams report or maybe he talks to Obamamaniac Roy Sekoff on a regular basis. Who knows. Calls overseas are v. cheap these days. I felt like calling the kurier myself after reading the article had it not been for the time change.

    Sekoff said on Wednesday on that show that Edward's endorsement was not just the last nail in her coffin but "it was, as if earth was thrown on the coffin that already lies in the ground" (transl from the Ger.) He actually said that. I found the clip on HuffPost.

    The article did not say that Sekoff was the Obama supporter personified. I barely know Sekoff and here he pops up in a German article in a big way. Never underestimate the power of the net.


    The media is killing us (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Davidson on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:51:12 AM EST
    After reading this Times story about how seemingly dead Clinton's audience is, I only become more enraged that the Democratic Party are going to let the media decide our nominee.  God, this is depressing.

    And is Clinton really "subdued" as the article claims?  I thought everyone has been saying how upbeat she is.


    Just Another Page From The Republican (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:02:30 PM EST
    playbook....We need to stop reading the blather, go to some foreign newspapers to learn what is really going on, and pick your blogs carefully.  As for cable news...forget it!  Leftwing talk radio is pretty jaded too.  If you read something, don't just take it at face value...do a little research and read the story from several sources, then make up your mind what it all means.
    Don't get depressed because, as you can see, the media is clearly not on HIllary's side.  

    Great Post (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by felizarte on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:12:26 PM EST
    and it is only from outside the U.S.A. that we realize how much people are rooting for America to be true to the values laid down by the founding fathers and to continue being a beacon of what is noble and true; to fight for liberty and equality.  Lately, this perception of America has been tarnished because of George W. and Cheney and their gross missteps in foreign policy; neglecting the conditions of a majority of its people; the victims of Katrina; high healthcare costs and infrastructure in disrepair.

    Only Hillary Clinton has concrete proposals to deal with these problems.


    Thank You...and I Like Yours Too. If We Think (none / 0) (#48)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:21:23 PM EST
    about it, a good start to getting America back on track has much to do with just doing the right thing, not trying to stab America in the back.  I admit my bias toward Hillary, but she does have the right ideas and I would bet money she learned alot from her husband's presidency...what works and what doesn't.

    Let's stick to what we believe to be right (none / 0) (#28)
    by felizarte on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:59:24 AM EST
    just like Hillary.

    The media is owned and operated (none / 0) (#53)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:39:46 PM EST
    by Republicans.

    One can only wonder when "Afternoon Howard" is going to premier post-GE. It's difficult to believe Dean is so stupid he doesn't know what's going on, so my next guess is he's been promised something big at the close of his DNC leadership role.


    Fer pity's sake, it was rural South Dakota (none / 0) (#68)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:34:54 PM EST
    and I'd like to know the last time that a crowd was excited by anything there.  It's not what Dakotans do.  

    It's Amazing (none / 0) (#41)
    by creeper on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:45:59 PM EST
    I could not find Hillary's name on the CBSNews frontpage this morning.  Obama and McCain, twice each.  No Hillary.

    Creeper...Amazing, NO...Criminal, YES (none / 0) (#49)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:23:37 PM EST
    The msm and obama is doing the best they can to make HIllary the invisible woman.  Try as they might, they can't keep her down.  AND, it's killing them...she constantly makes them look like
    morons, which seems to steel their resolve to be even nastier.

    She is such a classy candidate. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by wurman on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:31:16 AM EST
    Some wag (elsewhere) termed Sen. Clinton a "class act."

    I corrected him & pointed out that it is not an act.

    Hillary...You Show Them Who Is Boss...Continue (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:40:17 AM EST
    to let them know you are the best candidate.  obama already believes he has OR in the bag...oh that there would be a rude awakening for him!

    A generally punchy ad, but marred by (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by outsider on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:10:19 PM EST
    the ill-advised line: "She's been right when it mattered".  Regardless of what you think about her vote in favour of the Iraq War, this line just invites rejoinders to the effect that, when it counted, she was actually seriously wrong.  Not politically astute, IMO.  But I emphasise: a criticism of the ad, not the candidate.

    go back and listen to her Senate speech (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by jackyt on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:53:44 PM EST
    re: her vote.

    She explained clearly and succinctly her reasoning behind her vote. It was to give Bush the muscle to enforce a call for WMD inspections. Had Bush not broken his word, and allowed the UN inspectors to finish their job, the war would have been avoided. Clinton's vote was in support of a logical tactic to AVOID war.

    Even in that, "she was right when it mattered". That Bush and his enablers lied, cheated and bullied the entire country into the Iraq debacle is on HIS head, not Senator Clinton's.


    The obamaphiles Conveniently Gloss Over (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:28:07 PM EST
    those facts.  Their mantra is:  Hillary Clinton voted to go to war...this is not true...they need to read the Iraq Resolution.  76 other senators voted the same way Hillary did, some even ran for president this cycle and were not called out.  gwb decided to go to war without even considering the caveats that allowed for many things to be accomplished before even considering going to war...he gamed the system, just like obama does.

    Only if you assume she was wrong (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Marvin42 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:01:19 PM EST
    Which obviously you do, but not everyone will. Just because Obama says she was wrong doesn't make it so.

    I like the use of "THE ONE". (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by LibOne on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:24:39 PM EST
    You just know that it's going to piss off BO supporters.

    Hillary called BTD 'brilliant' yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by catfish on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:50:11 PM EST
    Just in case anybody missed the conf. call. Actually, she called his prologue brilliant.

    Well heck... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:38:30 PM EST
    we knew that already ;-P

    But it's nice to hear it.


    Second rant--MI/FL (BTD, please note) (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:20:17 PM EST
    AP story from Washington ends: "Some think the fairest solution is to disregard the primary votes and split the delegations evenly between the two candidates."

    How fair is that?  How democratic is that--disregard the primary votes!  Well, if it happens, I trust someone will tell the delegates they are free to vote however they want.  Maybe Hillary would get some of her votes back.

    Ending NCLB and replacing it with a plan (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:36:40 PM EST
    that will actually teach our students, deal with outcomes assessments, and not force teachers to teach to a series of multiple guess tests would be a good thing in my book.

    Not bad (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:23:02 AM EST
    It actually reminds me of an ad John Brabender did for Rudy in Florida. Didn't work. . .

    I can see why (none / 0) (#4)
    by Lahdee on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:25:10 AM EST
    imagine a republican castigating the press for process stories. Who'd a thunk it.

    I think Obama's (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:26:44 AM EST
    skipping the primary contests de facto also helps make this ad effective.

    I think there's a chance (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:27:54 AM EST
    that Hillary could pull off Oregon. Not a great chance, but a chance. You're right that she appears to be the one fighting for it, not him.

    So what then. . .?


    I was thinking she could make it single digits (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:31:23 AM EST
    I see no chance of her winning it.

    The Only Way She Wins (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by BDB on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:40:27 AM EST
    is if Obama voters don't bother voting because they think the race is over.  

    Unlikely, but hilarious.


    Fair enough (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:34:32 AM EST
    I don't think a single-digit loss really changes anything. That was the North Carolina criterion.

    Who knows what anything means in this (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:38:18 AM EST
    election.  IN was the tie-breaker according to obama...exactly what did that mean.  Hillary won IN and she is still be dogged to get out.

    The IN narrative (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by wasabi on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:47:18 AM EST
    The narrative about her Indiana win is that it is due to Rush's meddling.  I've heard it on several networks.  So she didn't really "win" Indiana after all.  Get it?

    I heard that this week, too, about (none / 0) (#69)
    by Cream City on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:37:11 PM EST
    primaries 'way back that she won -- and I had to point out that Rush's campaign began after that.

    But it was in conversation with a full-blown member of the OFB, and I don't speak Obaman, so concepts of chronology and causation and the like mattered little.


    Obama is campaigning in Oregon (none / 0) (#12)
    by ajain on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:33:44 AM EST
    He is going to be there today and tommorrow, at least.

    Things might shake up depending on how things turn out with Sen. Kennedy, but he is putting in a major effort in Oregon.


    A major effort? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:35:36 AM EST
    Come now.

    Perhaps in tv ads, but not in campaigning.


    Sure, its no Iowa or Pennsylvania (none / 0) (#19)
    by ajain on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:42:20 AM EST
    But he is there more than she is and considering the media narrative, I think that qualifies for serious effort.

    A Couple of Things (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by BDB on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:56:40 AM EST
    First, it's not true that he's been in Oregon more than Hillary.  According to the Washington Post, Obama will have made a total of 9 campaign appearances in Oregon before Tuesday, going back to last year.  See here.  Moreover, when offered 30 minutes for a townhall with a local television station, he turned it down.  Hillary got the full hour last night.  And it's not like Obama has been in Kentucky.  He had one large rally in Louisville and otherwise hasn't been in the state since August.  Of course, neither that nor his failure to connect with working class (non-AA) voters will account for his loss on Tuesday, it's all Fox's fault.  See here.

    In contrast, Clinton has made repeated stops in Kentucky and had already done 10 events as of Friday and that's all in April or May of this year.  See here.  It's unclear what her schedule will be over the next four days, but I have to think she won't simply leave the state open until Tuesday.


    Don't come to Kentucky, Obama (none / 0) (#34)
    by NoJoking on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:09:15 PM EST
    Obama will not come to Kentucky because 1) He thinks he has the election in the bag, and 2)after his bitter, gun-toting, bible-carrying comments, he is probably afraid to come to Kentucky, especially Eastern and Southeastern Kentucky.  Those are people who have worked hard to get where they are and don't appreciate his elitist attitude and comments.

    ? he was just in louisville. (none / 0) (#37)
    by MarkL on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:12:56 PM EST
    It would cost too much (none / 0) (#55)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:46:15 PM EST
    to bus in an arena full of bored supporters.

    After the last couple of photo ops showing people sitting behind him with virtually no interest in what he's saying, light clapping, or no clapping, I'm sure he's using the "why waste time on these things, they've assured me I can have this win" excuse for no more campaigning.


    Actually being there (none / 0) (#43)
    by DJ on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:52:02 PM EST
    in person hurts him (as they get to know him)

    It is better for his supporters and ads to campaign for him.


    Hillary is CLASS & has MY Vote (none / 0) (#32)
    by NoJoking on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:04:40 PM EST
    I hope she keeps running for President no matter what the media and the DNC do.  I feel my vote has been stolen from me. I will not vote for Obama--regardless.  I will stay home or write her name on the ballot if she is not the nominee.

    Unless she finds a way (none / 0) (#57)
    by ajain on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:09:40 PM EST
    To push herself back into the discussion I can't see how she can really carry on without being seen as an annoying sideshow. As much as I hate CW, if that line of thought prevails it will not bode well for her.

    I think she has inject herself into the race forcefully and she has very little time to do that before the next primary. Let see how things shape out.

    I don't think she needs to inject herself into (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Marvin42 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:34:32 PM EST
    anything. I think her battle now is with SDs. I think they are being slightly low key on purpose at this point (why, I am not sure). But she just needs to get her supporters out and voting, win the states she has to, maintain popular vote lead and just make her case.

    The media may sink (none / 0) (#58)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:09:59 PM EST
    Obama yet.

    "He blasts McCain for "embracing" Bush's attacks"
    CNN International headline on Google

    1.  All roads lead to Rome; all 'he's' refer to Obama.

    2.  I begin to wonder if the entire country would not be sick and tired of Obama this and Obama that by November (or even before).  Looks as if he will take every possible (and some im-possible ones) excuse to garner headlines.  Not to mention that maybe 'his' opinion will not be always relevant or informed.

    My very own media rant! (none / 0) (#62)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:14:30 PM EST
    I gave up the radio and the TV, and now goes the newspaper I guess (a hard decision for an ex-reporter).

    First rant:  Ruben Navarrette says Barak got the support of 'at least one white Southerner.'  And he speculates, "Maybe (Edwards) saw something in the (WVA) race that made him queasy....pundits
    assure us that the 70% of the state's white voters who cast ballots against the Democratic front-runner did so based on the issues...."

    Now tell me, how many southern primaries were marked by 90% of the AA's voting against Hillary?  That's not racial voting, oh, no!  Was it here in SC that that started?

    Skip the fact that I can understand why many of the AA's vote by skin color?  But notice that he said whites are voting AGAINST Obama (so I said AA's were voting against Hillary).  Can anyone not get that we are voting FOR Hillary, and maybe we have some issues in mind.  Oh, I guess issues are passe?  GRR....

    Third media rant--non-political (none / 0) (#64)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:35:16 PM EST
    RK and TK are "the only two people to serve in the Senate at the same time as siblings."  Would it have been as noteworthy if they had served at the same time as cousins?  Or bridesmaids?

    I'm sick, sick!  Day after day: one stupid mis-contruction after another.  Country's going down the drain.  Who ever wins the election may wind up as captain of the Titanic.