Skip to main content

At Shakespeare's Sister, certainly one of our most erudite, and refreshingly pithy blogs, Mustang Bobby joins the brilliant blogger Digby in pondering the question that simply isn't asked enough either by the media or by most Americans who unthinkingly buy into the fashionably negative patter about the Clintons:

Following up on the story of MSNBC reporter David Shuster being suspended for his comments about Chelsea Clinton, Digby has it right: why are the Clintons held to a different standard than every other candidate?

It hasn't been just the self-important elite class who annoint, from on high, who meets their tight-nostriled criteria. It extended even to the White House staff. When the Clintons moved in to the White House in 1993, they "ordered that portraits of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman be hung prominently," writes Sidney Blumenthal in his book about the Clinton presidency:

But the pictures were not put in place. The instructions to the staff were relayed again. Only after a month, and further prodding, was the order carried out. Some of the White House staff held, it seemed, a class deference to the previous Republican residents. From their upstairs-downstairs angle, patricians were being replaced by outlanders who didn't know their place.

One of the more poignant passages I read in Blumenthal's book on his years as a senior adviser in the Clinton White House was on a scarcely known, unreported outcome of the incessant investigations and media obsession with Whitewater:

On December 13, 1995, the Resolution Trust Corporation [created by the U.S government to oversee the S&L meltdown] released its ... report on Whitewater ... the result of an inquiry directed by the Republican Jay Stephens, a former U.S. attorney, and his law firm, Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro. ... all fears from the White House turned out to be misplaced. The report completely and categorically absolved the Clintons-and answered all outstanding questions about Whitewater.

Why do I call the passage poignant? Because after describing the enormous relief that the Clintons felt -- "they were vindicated" -- Blumenthal reports that the White House sent out copies of the report to "more than 150 news organizations," and that the Clintons eagerly anticipated the widespread reports of the extremely positive findings from a neutral agency:

Then, nothing happened. ... The Wall Street Journal ran a straightforward article in its news pages. But days passed and nothing appeared in The Washington Post and The New York Times. No network broadcast any report. As it happened, the Post never mentioned it, and almost two weeks later, in an item in the Sunday "News of the Week in Review," the Times published only a few lines, and somewhat misleading ones at that.

Mustang Bobby explains further:

The Clintons have always been held to a different standard than just about every other modern political family. We have the right wing to thank for that, and in a magnificent fit of attempted equalization, they say the left is just as bad about the Bush family, labeling it "Bush Derangement Syndrome." (As is the case with all right-wing attempts at equalization, it doesn't work. I am unaware that anyone is out there promoting a film that accuses George W. Bush of murdering his opponents.)But the question remains: what is it about the Clintons that sets them apart?

 

I have friends -- otherwise bright, analytical people -- who simply dislike the Clintons and have NO conscious awareness of the ORIGINS of their dislike, and how much their dislike has been shaped by the years and years and years of attacks from the rightwing noise machine, and has seeped through the mainstream media.

I suppose there are any number of answers, ranging from some deep-seated resentment based on a socio-economic snobbery (the Clintons were referred to as the "Arkansas HillBillies" by the wingnuts when Bill was elected in 1992) to just pure visceral hatred that reaches Shakespearean levels and is just as inexplicable: Iago never fully explains why he hates Othello.

How dare those "Arkansas Hillbillies" invade the D.C. elites' patrician turf? Those friends of mine have no idea how, in 1992, the socialite snob of Washington, D.C. -- Sally Quinn -- declared the Clintons to be just not the right kind of people for Washington, D.C., and how the venom of her and other Washington insiders' attacks have filtered throughout the press corps who, most of all, want to feel like they "belong."  These days, Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd continue the smirking, sniffing, looking-down-upon -- burying the Clintons up to their necks in sand and lobbing hard rocks of verbal attacks upon them.  (I'm certain that a good part of Shuster's nastiness to the Clinton's emanates from that pressure to fit in to the elite media.) Quinn regularly wrote Washington Post columns belittling or advising the Clintons on how they should behave. One 1992 article was subtitled, "Welcome to Washington, but Play by Our Rules."  Bill Clinton made numerous efforts, holding several intimate dinners at the White House, trying to charm the Washington elite. Blumenthal writes that he attended one of the dinners and that "every amenity available" was extended to the elite. But there was nothing that he or Hillary could say, as Blumenthal makes clear in another Sally Quinn story:

In his inaugural, Clinton honed the line he had used at Mrs. [Katherine] Graham's.  "This beautiful capital, like every capital since the dawn of civilization," he said, "is often a place of intrigue and calculation.  Powerful people maneuver for position and worry endlessly about who is in and who is out, who is up and who is down, forgetting those people whose toil and sweat ends us here and pays our way."  In the CBS studio in Washington, Sally Quinn, who was serving as a commentator, turned to a producer.  "That's a terrible mistake he's made, attacking Washington. He said the same thing the other night at Kay's and everyone reacted very negatively.  I have to go on the air to say that," Quinn said, according to the producer.

And the beat goes on.

Originally posted to SusanHu on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:58 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  In your opinion... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jrooth, kulshan

      what does Shuster and MSNBC need to do make amends for the mistake?

      This is not snark.

      In my opinion, the suspension was both warranted and equitable. Do the Clinton's want more? If they want firings, who do they want fired? Shuster for one stupid comment, or Matthews for his litany of crap? If this is about Matthews, come out and say it - say that they want Matthews fired. It will never happen, but at least be upfront about it. Matthews will not be fired and the Clintons won't try open warfare with Matthews, because they might need to get free airtime on his show and he has too much juice.

      If this was about anything other than political opportunity, it would have been over after a news cycle. It also would've been over if the HRC campaign was flying high instead of reeling from a string of defeats.

    •  How can you expect them to stop... (0+ / 0-)

      ...when Clinton gave a nod and a wink to the methodical destruction of the rest of the field in the summer and fall?

      "It's a race to decide who the British goverment will follow blindly for the next 4 years" Kennedy/Kerry '08

      by Salo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:32:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  As a very recently declared (11+ / 0-)

      Clinton supporter (previously Edwards), I thank you for articulating so well my conclusion about the real source of Clinton-hate.  

      For months, I could not understand why so many seemingly progressive people spent their time repeating Republican themes from the "90s.  I finally realized that there are many people who have come of age hearing only aboput the fake "scandals".  They have no way of knowing that every singfle one in which Hillary was supposedly involved has been found to have no basis except fevered Republican imaginations.

      •  I don't agree (0+ / 0-)

        Some of us out here in progressive land just aren't getting past AUMF and Kyl-Lieberman. That's everything to me.

        No doubt, Republicans and some independents dislike HRC for the reasons stated. But even some of this hate from the right is due to HRC trying to take on health care reform and other issues during the Clinton Presidency. Now right wingers hated Bill to be sure, but they  hated HRC more because she was unelected and she was involving herself in policy.  

      •  I think your statement is way too broad. (0+ / 0-)

        I defended the Clintons in WH, but I am pissed about NAFTA, media consolidation, welfare & not corporate reform, and many of the policies Bill personally worked to pass.  I also believe that Monica was a plant, and he was easy and stupid.  HE is why I don't want Hillary to be President.  If she would repudiate some of what he did, I would feel much better about her.  

        Since the choice is now Clinton, Obama, and John McCain, I find not a dimes worth of difference between them on many policies that I care about deeply.  

        I agree that the Clintons have been broiled, boiled, and skewered by the media.  However, I think "pimping" in this context needs to be defined as "promoting", the same way we "pimp" diaries on this site.  Since it is new vernacular, I think it was appropriate for it to be explained and any misconceptions apologized for - but .....

        If I had a choice between Hillary and Obama, I would still take Hillary over him anyday.

        Edwards is gone, and I am disenfranchised and undecided.

        by dkmich on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:51:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  for me, it's the opposition to Dean and (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        linnen

        the 50 state strategy.  It's the DLC, "centrism" and consultants.  Oh, the consultants.

    •  Susan, the hatred started earlier- (6+ / 0-)

      The southern christians thought Bill was their Great White Hope because of his baptist church going and were impressed by his political savvy, charisma etc., and supported his political rise until they found out he and Hillary were Pro-Choice. That was a Betrayal of great magnitude and the abortion issue was the new big christian mantra back then that the christian/republican group got momentum from. The rest is christian coalition/republican smear history.

      "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

      by roseeriter on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:34:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hey Susan, glad to see you back so soon! (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    miriam, souvarine, anna shane, DemAC, katz5

    Cheers.

  •  Oh go away (5+ / 0-)

    People don't dislike Hillary because of some mysterious unfair conspiracy.  We dislike her because of the things she says and does in public.  

    She has worked hard to earn our disrespect.

    ------
    "We are the ones we've been waiting for." --Barack Obama
    "If Obama is the nominee, we are doomed." --Rush Limbaugh

    by Troutnut on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:02:00 PM PST

    •  I don't dislike Hillary. (30+ / 0-)

      She's a dedicated public servant and a brilliant woman.  I'm not in love with the idea of her being president, is all.  That's for a variety of reasons, none of which are my feelings about her as a person, or about the Clintons as people.

      I think this diary makes some fair points.  The media positively gets off on savaging the Clintons, and that's something to which I would hope and expect the lefty blogosphere would respond.

      "I'd like to think the internet will save us, but some of the non-thinking I've seen in the various candidate diaries makes me wonder." - cityofgates

      by Pegasus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:06:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah. I'm with you. (7+ / 0-)

        This diary is pretty much spot on, and it's a relief to see the diarist contribute something that's not dripping with anti-Obama vitriol.

        Personally, I have never much cared for Hillary, but for a shamefully long time it was for reasons less than substantive.

        "Some folks look for answers...others look for fights."

        by The Termite on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:08:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  "gets off" or just worn out? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Morgan Sandlin

        it does say something that the media wouldn't go out of its way to help them out when they need it, or even perhaps deserve it.  now that we've had a few long months of their "comeback," i know exactly how they might have been feeling.

        post-911, as i moved from apathetic apoliticism to politically interested, i discounted any perceptions i had of the clinton presidency as uninformed, and deferred my perceptions to those who said they followed them and liked them.  i, for one, really hadn't.

        now, however, the HRC campaign has brought those years back with sufficient dread, frankly.  my perceptions now seem to be about the same as then - which boils down to, "will someone please make it stop?"

        Do we support the Democratic party, or ARE we the Democratic party? -Loudoun County Dem

        by jj24 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:15:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  and well paid.... (0+ / 0-)

        $35 million! cool!

      •  true dat (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pegasus

        I think this diary makes some fair points.  The media positively gets off on savaging the Clintons, and that's something to which I would hope and expect the lefty blogosphere would respond.

        And I think our side would be foolish to nominate a Clinton, given ...

        It just ain't fair.

        But it is what it is.

        Let's push back against what the media has done.

        But let's choose wisely about our priorities. We don't want to have to keep fighting this battle, do we?

        it's about biconceptualism ... Obama08

        by wystler on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:50:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I agree to an extent... (0+ / 0-)

      This diary refers to when Bill and Hillary first came to Washington D.C., BEFORE they became the insiders. The Clinton's didn't change the system, they just changed the names.

      ..and this refusal by many Clinton supporters to accept the fact that individuals can believe that a return of Hillary and Bill to the White House is not a good thing for the nation without that decision being based on mysogyny, right-wing memes, etc., etc.

      This "they have to be a victim of something" framing is tiring.

      Its the delegates that count

      by Morgan Sandlin on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:17:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah (5+ / 0-)

        My reasons for not wishing to return the Clintons to the Whitehouse have nothing to do with the smirking and sniffing villagers.

        NAFTA

        Defense of Marriage Act

        Helms-Burton Act

        Freedom to Farm Act

        Anti-Terrorism Act

        Telecommunications Act

        Welfare Repeal

        Hillary's actions since then haven't argued for her nomination, in my opinion.

        Likable diary though. Thanks for that, Susan.

        Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

        by bumblebums on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:23:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't see why both things aren't completely (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        linnen, Boston Boomer, rapala

        valid.  They are victims and some people do feel strongly about the notion of their return to the White House - positively and negatively.  I don't think any of those things are mutually exclusive.  I go from really not wanting them back to being okay with it - on a roller coaster in my feelings towards them - but I don't for a second allow myself to buy into the rightwing frame that they deserved a lot of what they got at all because they didn't.  No one does.  Well, maybe Dick Cheney does, but no one would have to make stuff up about him if they were going after him either.

      •  The Clintons never really became insiders. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        linnen

        I firmly believe that the Democratic establihment hates them too.  

        Don't you remember when the Bushes first moved into the WH and all the papers printed everything the Bushes told them--claims that the Clinton people had "trashed" the WH and taken the "w's" off of all the typewriters?  None of it was true.  

        The Bushes are in fact insiders.  The Clintons are not.  The Carters were treat almost as badly as the Clintons.  The DC establishment prefers Republicans.  

        I think the last Democratic President they approved of was JFK, but then he had to go and try to advance Civil Rights.  That's simply not done!

        If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

        by Boston Boomer on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:31:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Tsk, tsk (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      spartan68, souvarine

      She has worked hard to earn our disrespect.

      Much like yourself then.

      Follow the development at RezkoWatch

      by DemAC on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:27:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Please identify one issue (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      linnen, Boston Boomer

      where Hillary is less progressive than Obama.  And the Iraq discussion about the past does not count.  In respect to going forward in Iraq, please discuss plans for getting out.  And I am not sure, but I saw a report that Obama did not even vote on Kyl-Lieberman.  If that is true, and I am open to correction, that issue is also off the table, so to speak.

    •  Oh, some certainly do (0+ / 0-)

      but not all.

      The flip side of this is just because some people really are out to get you doesn't mean everyone is.

  •  This class antagonism was certainly present (12+ / 0-)

    during WJC's administration.  And I suppose vestiges remain.  Though really it was Bill not Hill who came in for most of the "white trash" slurs -- though sad to say I've seen those revived HERE and not even troll-rated.  

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:04:42 PM PST

  •  I wish people would remember this (13+ / 0-)

    and demand better for all of our pols. If someone who supports Obama doesn't think the same kind of shit will happen to him should he win they just haven't been paying attention.

    The media decides what the script will be regardless of the reality.

  •  I Defended Them Both Throughout Bill's Admin (16+ / 0-)

    and I defend them now against those attacks.

    I opposed their style of campaigning and politicking then and I oppose hers now.

    And I know very why.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:05:10 PM PST

  •  Congratulations (10+ / 0-)

    I didn't think it was possible, but you actually wrote a diary without even mentioning the name "Obama"!  

    It really is a refreshing change.

  •  Awwww... (0+ / 0-)

    Mean old media! A bunch of meanies!

    Don't worry. Obama will have his time of getting harsh, unfair treatment from the media. They do it everyone, not just the Clintons.

    Stop your complaining and get your campaign in order.

    I'm black, and therefore automatically vote exclusively for black candidates. You're white and choose only based on the issues.

    by brooklynbadboy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:07:05 PM PST

  •  Bill lost me (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MarkC, rapala, abeincicero, Capt Morgan

    with welfare reform, fundraising scandals, and pardon-gate.  I defended him but was embarassed about other things during his administration.   I came into this primary season feeling HRC was insincere but prepared to vote for her but feeling strongly she would lose to McCain.  I didn't think Obama had a chance.  This campaign has only added to my misgivings and I've been paying close attention.  

    19 States and the USVI. More Delegates. Yes We Can!

    by Hope08 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:07:21 PM PST

  •  I think, though... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Morgan Sandlin, Hope08, Capt Morgan

    ... that the Clinton campaign's argument is that because of their experience in being knocked around by the Freak Show media, they now know how to beat it...

    But all they've demonstrated this campaign season is that -- instead of fighting to change it -- they have only attempted to become masters of the system.

    And in comes Barack Obama who claims that he can rise above the Freak Show. And, in the case of his wildly misconstrued Reagan remarks, he proved that he can fight back successfully and prevent untrue media narratives from taking shape...

  •  I don't have that kind of animosity (11+ / 0-)

    toward the Clintons.

    I will say that we progressives were clamoring for a good leader in 2002, 2003, etc. and Hillary was one of many who let us down.

    In the wake of that, she acts as if she could not have possibly known better.

    That does disturb me.

    "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." --Stephen Colbert

    by InsultComicDog on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:11:40 PM PST

    •  They've both let us down (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      linnen, Boston Boomer, InsultComicDog

      in different ways and at different times.  Clinton's stance on the war and her choice on how to play it through until 2008 was disturbing.  Obama has done some disturbing things too though.  Alito is a big example of that, and there have been votes he's missed that really made me worry about him.  Clinton, Obama and Edwards have all had presidential aspirations for quite awhile now and it has clearly affected their judgement in some votes and positions in a negative way.  I don't mean this as an excuse for them.  They were in tough spots and they calculated politically, and they didn't read the tea leaves or the people correctly, and things changed, sentiments changed, etc.  

      Remember when John Murtha said we should get out of Iraq in November of 2005?  Remember how big a deal that was in Washington and in the media?  Remember how he was derided and called a coward? Remember how the Republicans immediately cooked up a bill for immediate withdrawal, and that whole mess?  That was only two years ago.  Things have changed a lot in a relatively short time.

      "The walls between art and engineering exist only in our minds." --Theo Jansen

      by joanneleon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:46:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  In America, we say "Anyone can grow up (16+ / 0-)

    to be President."

    Well, when Anyone did, They just couldn't stand it.

    What They, some may ask? The same ones who are now deigning the so-called 'Maverick' as their team's standard bearer.

    Repeating the hatred of the Clintons (or for that matter, hits on Obama) only feeds Them.

    Civil marriage is a civil right.

    by stitchmd on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:14:08 PM PST

  •  I promised myself that I would post on these (3+ / 0-)

    candidate diaries, but I just can't help myself.

    You do your candidate a disservice by trying to paint her as a victim of the media.  Even if it's true.  It's a weak position that you just can't win.  It encourages the opposition against her.  It's a partisan position that the media will simply dig their heels in against you.

    Frankly, I shouldn't be saying this because really it should be a secret that Obama supporters should keep to themselves.  But I just think the whole narrative that Senator Clinton is a victim of the media is not credible to many observers from all levels of economic or social status.

    She's a no-holds-barred political player of the old school.

    I'm an Obama supporter.  I'm telling you that Senator Clinton has permanently lost the sympathies of many Americans, whether fair or not.

    If you guys don't recapture the high ground soon, you're going to be sunk.  If I were you, I would try another tack (so I can have more fun trying to shoot it down).

    •  should read "wouldn't post on these..." (0+ / 0-)
    •  In other words (11+ / 0-)

      let the media write what they want regardless of what is real.

      Sorry, I will never do that. It's how we got "Gore says he invented the internet" and so many other greatest hit jobs.

    •  Senator Clinton is no-holds-barred ... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      linnen, Boston Boomer, mrchumchum

      ...it's true. But that doesn't make the media treatment fair. So far, the media have been quite gentle with Senator Obama, but when the new Swiftboaters come out of the woodwork, the coded (and more brazen) racism comes about in the general election, and all the other panoply of whispering and shouting campaigns are brought to bear by the powers-that-be to slice-and-dice Obama, a critique of the media's treatment of the Clintons will be worthwhile having close at hand.

      The unfair treatment and the double-standard are  accurate assessments of the Clinton coverage - no matter that they contributed to this by some of their behavior - and that should be addressed no matter who wrote the Diary.

      The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose. - Frederick Douglass

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:14:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That sounds good to me. (0+ / 0-)

      She's a no-holds-barred political player of the old school.

      Jack and Bobby Kennedy were like that.  They knew how to fight dirty if necessary and win at all cost.  We need that this year.

      Obama has lost the sympathies of some Americans as well.  No one's candidate is perfect.

      If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

      by Boston Boomer on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:49:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right, but precisly why trying to evoke (0+ / 0-)

        sympathy on dKos is kind of pointless.  You don't see the contradiction?

      •  Boston Boomer (0+ / 0-)

        I know you're on the Kos Kleanup Kommitte (or whatever it's called).  I wasn't trying to troll this site.  I honestly believe what I said: which is that the case has already  been abundantly made that Senator Clinton has been mistreated by the msm.  Making it again will probably just worsen the problem, but I have no right to say, I guess.  I didn't mean to muck up the waters, I just think that supporters of Senator Clinton would do themselves a favor by keeping to the issues, rather than making a case for the unfair msm, or arguments about electability.  Neither of which people have all that much control over, or can predict.

        IMHO, the recent Krugman health care tossup was a good example of how an issue might sway dKos.

        •  I can't believe the Kos Kleenup Kommittee (0+ / 0-)

          meme is already out there!

          If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

          by Boston Boomer on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:10:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I didn't mean disrespect by (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Boston Boomer

            referring to it.  I'm just trying to say that I'm not trolling, that's all.

            Boston Boomer, I'm not trying to f with you, or anything.

            I'm DEFINITELY staying out of candidate diaries from now on!!!!

            •  That's OK. (0+ / 0-)

              I didn't think you were trolling.  I hope you didn't get the idea that I have any authority or anything.  I see that you're new, and welcome.  But don't you think it would be a lot more fun if we could all be a little more friendly like in the old days?

              If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

              by Boston Boomer on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:23:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I totally agree. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Boston Boomer

                Though I don't know about the old days.

                My theory about the "Hillary Hating" is that supporters of Senator Clinton should actually just ignore it and focus on her strengths - especially now.  I feel like there's a syndrome that feeds itself and if you argue that she's being unfairly treated, because of human nature, it actually causes the reverse effect.  People just end up hating her more; people don't like a victim when they're trying to portray themselves as strong.  At least, that's how it's gone so far, IMHO.  It's TOTALLY unfair, but people should try "fighting" it in a different way, IMHO.

                Believe it or not, I thought my original post would be helpful.  But I can see how it could perceived as more pointless candidate hyping.

                Again, I'm getting outta of here!

                •  I thought your original post was fine. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  linnen, mrchumchum

                  I hope you stick around.  I think this place will eventually return to it's old self.  I see your point about not complaining, but unfortunately it doesn't really work to ignore the unfairness.  

                  That is the mistake that Al Gore made in 2000 and John Kerry made in 2004.  We really do have to work the refs (media), because otherwise they don't respect you and they keep beating you down.  Obama is next, believe me.  He won't get a free ride forever.

                  If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

                  by Boston Boomer on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:39:12 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  How do you think they should be fighting it? (0+ / 0-)

                  If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

                  by Boston Boomer on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:39:54 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, I'm not sure if it's (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Boston Boomer

                    a trade secret or not :).  Just kidding, I have nothing but pet theories.

                    IMHO, it's all about the narrative.  What will work is whatever is consistent with the narrative that appeals to people's feelings, not their heads.  Hillary has always been the hardened frontrunner - she keeps trying to position herself as the underdog/victim because it plays to the feelings of being victimized that I've noticed in some of her supporters (a valid feeling).  I think that's the wrong strategy.  She should try to recapture a sense of frontrunner status.  Tough, but above the pettiness.  Going after MSNBC ends up looking absurd.  She just doesn't have an underdog positioning.  I'm pretty sure that Obama is permanently the insurgent.  That's why debunking works so well for him.  If someone is known as being a down and dirty political player, it's too hard to make the argument that you're being treated unfairly.  It does play to the base somewhat, but it runs out of steam eventually because it alienates those who already don't sympathize.  People just aren't going to buy this idea that Hillary Clinton is an underdog, or victim.  They just won't.  Even if she is.

                    Kerry and Gore seemed weak.  Obama might seem weak to you, but I don't think that's how he's perceived in much of the populous.  I think he's perceived as a "champion".  Which, believe it not, he kind of is.  He is pulling off an extraordinary feat against the Clinton titans.  That's another reason why the "Hillary Clinton as underdog" narrative plays more to Obama strengths.  It's also why, I think, the narrative that the Republican machine will try to spin might also fail against him.  As soon as people have a "champion", they will defend him/her.  Attacks bounce because they feed the narrative.  Just as they have for Obama so far.

                    Many dKosers, from my read on it, take attacks on Obama as practice for the General Election.  I know I do.  I think there's very few left on dKos who are naive about the coming onslaught of Rethug venom.

  •  Absolutely agree (0+ / 0-)

    There are some of us who are quite enthusiastic about both Democratic candidates in the race and will be eager in November to vote for either of them -- but who lean Obama precisely because of this phenomenon you describe. And it's not even so much "The media hate HRC so we'd better go with someone they don't hate yet" that pulled me in the direction of Obama; it's having, ironically, enough respect and admiration for this family that I honestly don't want to see them go through now what they went through then. I did the same thing with Gore; I prayed and prayed he wouldn't enter the race because the vicious pigs in the media would destroy him all over again just b/c they enjoy it; he wouldn't get done a quarter of what he otherwise would be able to get done, he'd be torn apart publicly for years, and he doesn't deserve that. Nor do the Clintons. I just can't imagine how HRC would complete a victorious campaign, and then govern, with this freakshow slobbering after her, watching her every move and then screeching from the mountaintops about how awful it was -- even when it wasn't.

    Liberal parenting funnies at The Hausfrau Blog

    by jamfan on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:17:20 PM PST

  •  Here's the problem (7+ / 0-)

    I cannot disagree with anything in this diary.

    Six months ago - I almost certainly would have rec'ed it.

    But folks like this diarist have so poisoned the well --- have spent so much time and effort trying to use every tenuous thread possible to strangle Obama --- I find myself feeling cold about the whole thing.

    That's something many folks -- including this diarist -- would do well to remember.  Even if Clinton can come back and win the nomination, it's going to be hard for me to get all that worked up about stuff like this.

    As I sit here right now -- fresh back from reading a MyDD diary about how Obama cannot win because he is black -- all I can say is "karma sucks".

    I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

    by zonk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:17:25 PM PST

    •  A lot of people have poisened the (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      miriam, linnen, Boston Boomer, DMiller

      wells of both candidates. If you can't help and defend candidates because of their asshole supporters then consistancy requires that you support and defend neither.

      •  It goes to credibility (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Morgan Sandlin

        There are a few HRC supporters who could diary this and make me listen.... This isn't one of them.  I'm not gonna start clipping dairies from the history - but perhaps I should have been more clear: this diarist has poisoned the well of her credibility and while I wish no ill will, there's an instinctual negative reaction to anything written here.

        I don't feel the same about say... a Digby (who I think remains neutral or at least non-committal), or even a jerome armstrong - who's been something of a hack of late, but at least he hasn't been spending his time pushing the most ridiculous of far-out connect the dots in an effort to attack Obama - he's stuck with with inside baseball, subjectively flawed analysis.

        I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

        by zonk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:29:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So tell me about Icebergslim. (0+ / 0-)

          Does she have any cred?

          •  What I do is when I begin reading (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            linnen

            comment like the one you replied to above, I see it will be uncivil and I just skip right over it.  And then I give that commenter a pass from then on.  

            If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

            by Boston Boomer on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:55:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  BTW (0+ / 0-)

          I agree that Susanhu has been aweful. That doesn't mean that others haven't as well.

          I've both recced and fought with all of these people.

        •  I agree with you in great part ... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mike S, linnen, Boston Boomer

          ...but it would still be worthwhile to discuss the legitimate issues raised in this Diary (ignoring its authorship). There is plenty to criticize regarding the views and behavior of Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. It is also nonetheless true that they have been treated differently than others, and that is partly because they weren't part of the "club." And that applies no matter how much corporate money they have received.

          We shouldn't ignore this, because, sure as shooting, some other Democrats - I suspect President Obama will be one - will get unfair treatment for not being in the club.  

          The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose. - Frederick Douglass

          by Meteor Blades on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:07:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  But here's the thing (0+ / 0-)

            I don't think it's really a matter of being in some special club.

            Call it charisma, call it charm, call it personality, call it unfair -- certainly is -- but how the press treats a President is quite difficult to deconstruct.... so much so that sometimes we might be best off just accepting that it "is".  Don't get me wrong - call them on their bullshit, by all means.

            However - the press was terribly unfair to Carter... but they seemed to like Reagan.   They didn't like Nixon.   They loved Kennedy.  and on and on and on.

            No doubt my comment is going to be emblazoned somewhere as yet another 'cultish' reason to support Obama, but I think it's true.... For whatever reason, the press seems to like him.   They don't have this same desire to shred him like they did with a Howard Dean (for example).

            It's not a fair thing by any stretch.... but being a Democrat and progressive myself, I dare say it's a good thing... at least tactically thinking.

            I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

            by zonk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:55:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, the days of Walter Lippman being ... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mike S, linnen, Boston Boomer

              ...more powerful than some presidents have passed, and media types now have less clout by far. But, from the city council to the White House, reporters and pundits have always played with those who make it into the club by one means or another. Look at all those guys: Carter, Nixon, (B) Clinton - outsiders, and self-made men who were considered "hicks" in the media despite their first-rate minds. Kennedy, Reagan, Bush and Bush: club men, beyond wealthy by the time they reached the White house, and only Reagan self-made, the rest dependent on their fathers and grandfathers for their success.

              The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose. - Frederick Douglass

              by Meteor Blades on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:13:09 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  How true. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mike S

        I don't know if I will ever completely get past some of the things I've seen thrown at Democratic candidates here.  If I were doing oppo research for the Republicans I would come here every day.

        If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

        by Boston Boomer on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:53:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  It is interesting that THIS diarist... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      N in Seattle, Salo, Inland, Empower Ink, Hope08

      who has blanketed many spots on the web with posts sliming Obama at every opportunity is now lamenting how unfair "bias" is regarding candidates <G>

      Its the delegates that count

      by Morgan Sandlin on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:28:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Karma will come back to (0+ / 0-)

      Obama though.  

      "It's a race to decide who the British goverment will follow blindly for the next 4 years" Kennedy/Kerry '08

      by Salo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:29:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The solace I take in that (0+ / 0-)

        is that his campaign seems smart enough to deal with it effectively.

        This is old news for the Clintons, they should have been prepared.

        19 States and the USVI. More Delegates. Yes We Can!

        by Hope08 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:30:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Clinton laid off him (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Boston Boomer

          during the fall.   I found it to be quite inexplicable that she didn't launch a massive negative advert blitz and drag him down a bit and knock off his Halo.

          "It's a race to decide who the British goverment will follow blindly for the next 4 years" Kennedy/Kerry '08

          by Salo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:34:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The only reason HRC won't (0+ / 0-)

            go all out on Obama, is b/c it's been poll tested and it doesn't do well.  Attacking him would boomerang back on her, feed into her negatives.  But I think it may be coming since the end is near.

            19 States and the USVI. More Delegates. Yes We Can!

            by Hope08 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:38:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  months ago (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Boston Boomer

              she should have done it after Edwards decided to limit his cash by accepting public funding.

              If I had been her i'd have ensured a line of credit to Edwards with a series of back channel donors.

              That would have ensured Obama would have been attacking Edwards.  

              She got a bit lazy about strategy. I wonder idf she viewed Obama as a real threat before November.

              "It's a race to decide who the British goverment will follow blindly for the next 4 years" Kennedy/Kerry '08

              by Salo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:42:02 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  BTW, did you hear that Obama's meeting (0+ / 0-)

                with Edwards has been cancelled?  And that when asked Obama said the press would have to ask Edwards?  Now what do you suppose happened?

                If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

                by Boston Boomer on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:58:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  I should have been more clear (0+ / 0-)

        When something like this is reported by someone like this diarist... well...

        If say - TPM... or Digby... or whatever -- had posted the same thing, then I'd still listen.  I might even be moved to do something about it.

        But this diarist has no credibility left outside a group of hyper-partisans.

        I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

        by zonk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:32:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Diary not a call for fairness. (4+ / 0-)

      It's a call for Hillary and Bill to get better press.  If it was a call for fairness, diarist would be comparing Whitewater witchhunt to how HRC is dredgeing up Rezko and call for it all to stop.  Or something.

      But to me, it seems like another set of "morals" trotted out merely for political purposes, much like how the right wing went after Bill.  A plague on both their houses.  Time to move on to a higher level.

      She voted for the war.

      by Inland on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:30:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  but the real bottom line, SusanHu, is... (6+ / 0-)

    ...the the Clintons now embody the inside-the-Beltway mindset every bit as much as Sally Quinn.  Even more so, really, since they've actually held political power.

    The 1992 Clintons could say of the 2008 Clintons, in the immortal words of Pogo:

    We have met the enemy, and he is us

    The way to win is not to move to the right wing; the way to win is to move to the right policy. -- Nameless Soldier

    by N in Seattle on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:19:17 PM PST

  •  Hillary has 35 years to make her point (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inland, Empower Ink, Capt Morgan

    And yet we the people are having a hard time believing in and or trusting her.  We are Democrats and if she is having such a hard time convincing us, how will she ever convince the Independents and or moderate Republicans.  With 35 years of experiences, one would think that by now she would have learned how to really serve us, vice us serving her.  She has become polarizing and her husband is not helping her.  Her 35 years of fighting was dirty politics.   The day she announces her candidacy she stated, "I am in to win" which was refreshing, but instead of mobilizing the people, she turns to Washington and the Lobbyists.  Most of her donations were from big donors, this cripple her later and her bills started to pile up.  She now got the message, and she is doing much better with people support, but it maybe a little bit too late.  

    •  She's been transformed (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Boston Boomer

      into a racist and what not by the media.

      But she didn't reign in th edistortions when Edwards was derided as a pansy.

      Obama's next up.

      "It's a race to decide who the British goverment will follow blindly for the next 4 years" Kennedy/Kerry '08

      by Salo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:27:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Her 35 years of fighting was dirty politics"... (4+ / 0-)

      While I agree with much of your comment here, I don't think this particular quote adds much. Every politician who has won a race of any importance can be accused of this to a lesser or greater degree. The higher up the ladder, the "dirtier" it gets. That, I think, is what the Diarist is, in part, complaining about, the double-standard. While I have immense criticisms of the Clintons' political views, and of their personal behavior that has spilled over into public life (not the stuff that is nobody's business but their own), it's obvious that there is a double-standard when it comes to them.

      The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose. - Frederick Douglass

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:59:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I agree that Hillary hasn't gotten a fair shake (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    linnen

    from the media and the DC elite. My ambivalence about supporting her as a candidate is that she has not survived these assaults well, she carries the scars from them. She is like a turtle with a tough shell to protect her, but it also doesn't let folks in. I think she may have learned the wrong lessons from her experiences.

    * not be spontaneous because you will be misquoted. (this brings a stiltedness to her campaign, and the shills in her audience seem pathetic.

    * be tough so people will vote for a woman as commander and chief (AUMF).

    * be a tough competitor (I think that she has crossed the line in some places, eg Nevada caucauses, her call to accept Mich and Fla primary votes).

    I think that Hillary would make a fine president, I think she is smart, and knows her policy. I have a hard time forgetting that she has never apologized for her Iraq vote.

    I also have reservations about Barack, (I was an Edwards supporter) but I think that, in the long run, you are right, she has been treated unfairly, and I don't think that is going to stop, which is reflected in her high negatives.  I don't know whether there is  "Clinton rules" or if any Dem president will be treated that way.  

  •  Is Chelsea available for interviews or not? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    abeincicero

    This, according to what I've read, is the crux of the problem. Shuster says that Chelsea is campaigning for mom but then the campaign won't let her do media interviews.

    I am not a Clinton nor an Obama supporter. If you're going to have someone out campaigning, then they need to be available and not just giving the state fair floor mop speech (at which John McCain is master).

    Maybe this is what happened with the Clinton's plans for health care and gays in the military. They ordered but no one jumped?

    •  IMO, the candidates, and government (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      taylormattd, Boston Boomer, DMiller

      officials themselves, are the only ones required to be available for the media.  They are the ones who must be held accountable.

      Chelsea Clinton is a private citizen.  If she wants to give speeches and not talk to the media, it's her choice.

      "To be afraid is to behave as if the truth were not true." -- Bayard Rustin

      by Joelarama on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:37:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Chelsea does not have to answer questions (0+ / 0-)

      if she does not want to.  She is not running for public office.

      If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy

      by Boston Boomer on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:00:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  hillary didn't show up for sally quinn's party (4+ / 0-)

    and the village will never forgive her.

  •  Thanks for not attacking Obama in this diary. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    taylormattd, BachFan, mrchumchum

    You do raise a good point about the media's relentless attacks on the Clinton and I just worry how Hillary will ever get a fair shake running against McCain the media darling.

    This might sound too cynical for your typical Obama supporter but I think Obama stands a better chance against McCain in the upcoming media war because the media tends to like Obama as much as they like McCain.  Even Bill Clinton says that Obama is treated better than Hillary.  Maybe he is on to something.

    •  and, sadly, that's a *major* factor (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BachFan

      The dysfunctional American political process, now based almost entirely on quick soundbite impressions (at best), almost demands that the party must consider it.

      "Who would you rather have a beer with?"  Blaaarrrgggghhh

      The way to win is not to move to the right wing; the way to win is to move to the right policy. -- Nameless Soldier

      by N in Seattle on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:30:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Clinton didn't speak up (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KenBee, Morgan Sandlin, Capt Morgan

    when other people had their records distorted in this particular campaign.

    Media have taken aim at Edwards and pretty much sank him by a combination of contempt and just ignoring him.

    They made fun of Kucinich and UFOs and ended the debate for Single Payer

    SO it is rich to see the next victim complain about the MSNBC treatment.

    "It's a race to decide who the British goverment will follow blindly for the next 4 years" Kennedy/Kerry '08

    by Salo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:25:47 PM PST

  •  They singled themselves out. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Capt Morgan

    Why pick on poor widdle Hillary? First of all, how did she get that $35 million? Bill's motavational speaking fees may be high, but they can't be THAT high. She's got the warewithal to be Senator-for-life, and the support, too. Why run for President?

    She won ugly, and she lost ugly. She's got 1100 delegates.

  •  Clintons live in glass house, throw stones. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, rasbobbo, Capt Morgan

    Yeah, I remember Whitewater.  Yeah, I remember that it was ridiculous to put the Clintons through an investigation over a deal where they lost money.

    That's why it's so idiotic and immoral and awful for HRC 08 to rev up the Rezko story, where Obama overpaid Rezko for a piece of land.  That's why HRC's lie about Rezko on national TV takes on special significance: she doesn't remember that sort of thing being BAD.  She remembers it as EFFECTIVE.

    I remember Clinton's blow job.  I remember fighting to keep him in office.  

    That's why I was angry to see an HRC supporter pay back my efforts with a diary on Obama's grandparent being a polygamist, under the CONCERN that someone else might use it.

    No, Clinton's remember all those bad attacks, but the lesson for them is, we're entitled to use them now.  And against fellow democrats.  Fuck that.

    She voted for the war.

    by Inland on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:26:43 PM PST

  •  surely you jest (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    N in Seattle, Capt Morgan

    How dare those "Arkansas Hillbillies" invade the D.C. elites' patrician turf? Those friends of mine have no idea how, in 1992, the socialite snob of Washington, D.C. -- Sally Quinn -- declared the Clintons to be just not the right kind of people for Washington, D.C., and how the venom of her and other Washington insiders' attacks have filtered throughout the press corps who, most of all, want to feel like they "belong."

    I'm sure the throngs of corporate backers and donators to the HRC campaign believe differently.

    Tell me this isn't another retread of the comeback kid-Washington outsider meme.  And if it is, please explain to me how the 'outsider' is "ready on day one" -- wouldn't this go completely into the face of HRC's claims that she knows the right levers to pull in Washington?

    Although the masters make the rules / For the wise men and the fools / I got nothing, Ma, to live up to. (Dylan)

    by teedz on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:26:53 PM PST

  •  I found some Praise a moment ago (0+ / 0-)

    happy to pass it on...(20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress http://www.thomas.loc.gov

    1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
    1. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
    1. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
    1. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
    1. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
    1. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
    1. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
    1. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
    1. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
    1. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
    1. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
    1. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
    1. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
    1. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
    1. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.
    1. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
    1. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11.
    1. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
    1. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
    1. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.
  •  Yes, but that's still not an inspiring motivation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrchumchum

    to support a candidate. Some days when I am mad and angry about the ways the far right demonized the Clintons (and I think you have this right) and dragged them through the mud for short-sighted partisan gain, then I want to back Hillary and shove her right into their leering smug Republican faces. "Here, you idiots! You got another Clinton as President! Your deepest fears realized! HAHAHA!"

    But I'm not really very happy with myself then. It's not easy, but it is better when I am wiling to offer peace, even across the aisle. Not naively or overly trustingly, but as an offering. This is always difficult when there has been open warfare. Sometimes we wonder why factions in various international disputes cannot manage to get along. How to convince an Israeli or a Palestinian, both of whom have experienced the death of loved ones at the hands of the enemy, to be slightly less vigilant and slightly more forgiving? It's at least partly about letting fears from your past control your present.

    So when Barack talks about change, it's more than a mantra. He's actually calling for a kind of sacrifice. No dreams of retribution satisfied. No looting of captured territory. No revenge. Just hope for the future. Is it possible? We get to decide.

  •  The media has never helped the Clintons (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, TracieLynn, Salo, Joelarama

    and at this point, if the media hates them, I take it as a positive sign.  They smear Clinton and ignore Edwards.  Why?  Because they feel threatened by them.

    Another reason?  The media represents the mediocrity class, IMHO.  Mediocre people in power hate people like the Clintons because they are not mediocre.

    Obama isn't mediocre either.  He's exceptional.  It remains to be seen how the mediocre class will attack him, and how much of a threat they percieve him to be.  I don't think they'll do it as openly as they do with the Clintons, but they will find a way to do it.

    "The walls between art and engineering exist only in our minds." --Theo Jansen

    by joanneleon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:37:32 PM PST

    •  I couldn't agree more with this. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      miriam

      The media represents the mediocrity class, IMHO.  Mediocre people in power hate people like the Clintons because they are not mediocre.

      And, I wouldn't have said that so categorically about the media 20 years ago.

      Sad, really.

      "To be afraid is to behave as if the truth were not true." -- Bayard Rustin

      by Joelarama on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:39:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This '08 campaign (0+ / 0-)

    will undoubtedly be the subject of hundreds of articles and books in the next couple of years. The most interesting ones will deal with the uncovering of the most under-reported phenomena of the past century: the cultivating of American mysogynism.  If it's been a mostly silent "ism"  until now, this is the year we have witnessed its full flowering in the traditional media and carried to an astonishing extreme in the so-called liberal blogs.  

    It's as if female history has been completely obliterated.  As if Hillary Clinton has created a new category, something never seen before: an ambitious female. Clearly this woman has scared the hell out of the male media, eagerly assisted by the botoxed, reconstructed, overly made-up, obsequious female media handmaids.  Apparently the only defense they see fit to use against this ambitious female is a wholesale onslaught of biased news pieces, every female scatological slur ever invented by males since time began, and a deliberate negative parsing of every word she utters.

    It's not new.  Women leaders have been defamed and ridiculed and demeaned since Boadicea and Joan of Arc.  The least vicious thing said about these two was that they were insane. Elizabeth I took perhaps the worst hits, the news of the day proclaiming that she murdered her  sickly brother so she could ascend the English throne.  Katherine of Russia was not spared either when she was called an emasculator of Russian troops.  And yet these women were revered by the "common people" in whose cause they persevered.  History has since judged them among the most worthy of warriors and rulers, but it took far too long for this truth to be revealed and American high school history books give them barely a mention.  Ambition is seen as a dangerous quality in a woman.  

    One has to wonder if Barak Obama would be considered differently if he weren't competing with the Hillary Clinton created by years of vicious right wing press and now aided and abetted by the current malicious self-serving press, and by disillusioned bloggers now enthralled by the concepts of Hope and Change and whatever else Americans are yearning for, embodied in a rather ordinary Chicago politician.  

     

         

    The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands....is the definition of tyranny. -James Madison

    by miriam on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:37:48 PM PST

    •  all good points... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      abeincicero, mrchumchum

      ...but she gave a nudge and a wink as Single Payer Advocate Kucinich (not that I like the guy much) was branded a UFO nutcase in a like Debate.

      Damn! That kooky Single-Payer it's for the X-file voters.

      "It's a race to decide who the British goverment will follow blindly for the next 4 years" Kennedy/Kerry '08

      by Salo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:48:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you Susan (0+ / 0-)

    Your diaries are always right on target.

    Stanley Fish's columns are definitely worth a read:

    First this:

    http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/...

    Then a follow on yesterday:

    February 10, 2008,  9:08 pm

    The responses to my column on Hillary Clinton-hating have been both voluminous (the largest number in the brief history of "Think Again") and fascinating.

    A Calumny a Day To Keep Hillary Away
    http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/...

    "Hope has to be made a reality in politics." ~ Hillary Clinton

    by SignalSuzie on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:45:58 PM PST

  •  Poor little rich kids. (0+ / 0-)

    Please.

    They extend all the amenities to the elite and still no one likes them?  Boo-Hoo.

    I had Hillary for my Senator for a while and was disgusted at her usage of the First Amendment for a doormat.  

    No one, the elites or just regular old dudes like me, owes the Clintons anything.  They must EARN respect like everyone else, and getting all aghast at some violent video games does not make me respect either her intelligence, the value of that Yale Law Degree (full disclosure: NYU Law myself), nor her ability to allocate government resources efficiently.

    The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants. A. Camus

    by TastyCurry on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:52:56 PM PST

  •  Depends on what the meaning of "is," "is." (0+ / 0-)

    You can't choose to have us only remember the best of Bill and ignore the worst.  You can't distance yourself from the sins of your spouse and then cozy up to the good things.

  •  Not that this will be received here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Boston Boomer

    but thanks anyway.

    Elitism is healthy and alive here on dkos.
    I saw it at the caucus.  The rich, white liberal elites at my caucus, did their noble liberal speeches about Iraq and how it is all Hillary's fault.  

    The few, elderly women and Hispanic women in the caucus talked about health care and their children.

    I have read this blog and other liberal blogs defending the elitists of MSNBC for months.  This week it is poor "David Shuster...tsk, tsk ...what thos horrid Clintons are doing to him."  
    You know something is wrong here when the likes of Matthews and Scarborough are defended here.  

    I remember wondering why, after NH, this blog was so unwilling to be even slightly honest and fair.  But I have figured it out.  This blog finds sexism tolerable.  I guarantee if the radio guys who were holding "Iron My Shirts" at a Hillary rally had been holding "Shine my shoes" at an Obama rally it would NOT have been minmized.  

    Hillary has been fighting for the rights of all since her college days and yet the left on this blog feeds off of the right wing narrative to create hate here.  Sad but true.

    Oh sure they are all going to trash me now.....and say, it's NOT women, it's THIS WOMAN.  I remember hearing that about Jesse Jackson (from some on the left) back when I was supporting his candidacy.  "It's not against African Americans, it's THAT African American."  

    When I used to ask why then, I got the same kind of nebulous answers that I hear about Hillary: I just don't like this person....and resentment that I dared ask why...for specifics.  Ironically, I have friends who despised Howard Dean for the same nebulous reasons back when.  They could not give me one answer based on real issues....just this general disliked fomented by the MSM.

    But now, on this so called "liberal blog", hate, sexism, and trashing on the basis personality is the norm.  I will be glad when the primary is over.  I do not think I can ever respect this blog and many of its posters again.

  •  Susan (0+ / 0-)

    just what is it?  You want us to believe that nothing about Bill's administration (or at least none of the bad parts) will influence Hillary's administration but then you drag out all the sordid history and tell us that that's why we haven't chosen Hillary.

    Because we're not as smart as you?  We've been influenced and we don't know it?  

    Or are you just trying to make excuses for why the candidate you've chosen to support didn't turn out to be the "inevitable" choice that we were all told she was through most of 2007?

    I made my decision based on qualifications, not gender.  

    Please respect it and quit dragging up old mud to justify her current failure to dominate at the polls.

  •  Susan, this stuff sticks because the Clintons (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    teedz, mrchumchum

    have played fast and loose w/ truth.  They are dirty, are perceived as dirty, so from now till forever any dirt you throw at them will be believed.  It is called 'baggage', and do you think we should keep carrying them, or pass progressive legislation?

    Zac G.

    The Democrats in 2008 are fighting over the soul of their Party, and so far the pro-soul side is losing.

    by Zacapoet on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:51:43 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site