Daily Kos

My fantasy Hillary Press Conference

Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:19:34 AM PDT

She walks briskly to the stage not in a pantsuit, but in a tailored business suit and heels.  

"Ladies and gentlemen of the press, thanks for coming.  I have a few announcements to make.

I'd like to start with a review of your performance in the past 8 years.  It seems clear, after a lengthy review, that your goals for the country are not aligned with mine or that of the rest of America.  We should all be working towards the same end but for some reason that I can't fathom, you seem determined to undermine our common goals.  

Let's start with the presidential campaign of 2000.  You variously described the very honorable, intelligent and visionary Al Gore as "wooden" and a "serial exaggerator".  

You criticized his choice of wardrobe and implied that it was the work of a style makeover by Naomi Wolfe.  Ms. Wolfe says you made the whole "earth tones" idea out of whole cloth.  
You reported that he claimed to have invented the internet and that the couple from Love Story was based on his relationship with Tipper.  
You criticized his sighs during a debate even as he mopped the floor with your favorite "cock of the walk" George Bush.  You mocked his proposals to secure the Social Security trust fund.  
During the recount, you encouraged readers to believe that the nation was going to have a constitutional crisis if he did not concede.  You helped give us the first term of the Bush presidency that saw the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the disastrous Iraq War. Judy Miller and Maureen Dowd worked especially hard for this dishonor.  

Then there came John Kerry in 2004.  A man who risked his life for his country running against a man who never risked anything but our honor and tax dollars.  
He was a "flip-flopper", an elite, a snowboarding rich guy who couldn't identify with the common man.  Kerry knew foreign policy better than George Bush and didn't need an earpiece to get him through debates.  But you trashed him anyway.  
You played the Swiftboat Ads and interviewed the attack group members and gave them full credence, downplaying the denials and the official reports.  You allowed the lies to linger and printed the retractions on page 36.  
You didn't even stand up for one of your own, Dan Rather, who after a long and distinguished career, was forced to resign after a story you yourselves failed to cover.  You allowed yourselves to be intimidated by George Bush's hit squad and Karl Rove's obscene vendettas.  
Congratulations, you gave us the second Bush term and Katrina and warrentless wire tapping and violations of our constitution that have severely damaged our abilty to get anything done in Congress.

And now, after 15 years of constant scrutiny of my life and past, and having found nothing, you have decided that I am "cold", that I have a "cackle", that I am "calculating", "unlikeable" and "wrinkled".   According to Maureen Dowd, who seems to make multiple appearances in these infamous episodes, I am "stubborn and imperious and secretive and vindictive and entitled".  According to Chris Matthews, who disrespectfully refers to me as "babe", I was the "inevitable" candidate, giving the voters the impression that they didn't have a choice.  

And I have been guilty of a strategic mistake in all of this.  I have run my campaign very carefully in the mistaken belief that if I didn't provoke you, you would cover me with some impartiality, you would be respectful and fair.  This was a stupid assumption on my part because you don't like me, never have and never will.  

Maybe that's a genuine response to me or maybe, more likely, it's a manufactured one you assume until you are sure you have taken me out of this race.  Judging from Al Gore's campaign and John Kerry's campaign, and my own experience, I think we can all see a pattern here.  

And in the last couple of months, you have praised my opponent at my expense.  We know why you're doing it.  You are hoping you'll have a relatively inexperienced Democratic nominee to go up against your annointed Republican nominee, John McCain.  David Brooks described your strategy last night on Charlie Rose's show.  

So, in a couple of months, after Mr. Obama secures the nomination, you will start to notice how his debate answers ramble and are unfocused and that he frequently seems rattled.  Compared to John McCain's "commanding", "forceful" style, Mr. Obama will seem "thin" and "not well grounded".  You will notice that he walks with a certain "urban lope".  You will remember that he admitted to some "youthful indiscretions".  You'll track down his former lovers for abortions and detials of his sexual prowess.  You'll interview his Harvard classmates for signs that he was an Uncle Tom.  You'll question his sincerity.  And Chris Matthews has already taken his response to terrorism on a test run when he called Obama's response to Benazir Bhutto's death, "cold".  

You do not want a Democrat to run the country, whether it is me or Mr. Edwards or Mr. Obama.  And you've gotten a little heady with all the power you think you have to prop people up and then tear them down.  

So, I've decided not to pander to you anymore.  From now on, I'm going to say anything I want.  You're going to spin it to fit your narrative anyway so I have nothing to fear from telling you exactly what's on my mind.  

And yes, I laugh, I don't particularly like hanging out with you, I don't use botox like some of you do, I clap for myself sometimes and I'm a proud feminist.  

But mostly I am sick and tired of you in the Press Gang giving your childish popularity contests priority over the needs of the country.  You have allowed your petty behavior to be used by the people who want to ruin  us for their own greed and power.  Your performance has been substandard and unworthy of a free press.  I will no longer consider you as important to my campaign.  Cover me whatever way you like, I'm going to do what needs to be done.  

Call me when you get over yourselves."

Snaps portfolio together, smiles shit eating grin.  
Exits, stage left.  

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Election 2008, media relations (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 73 comments

  •  tip jar (17+ / 0-)

    Disclaimer: my descriptions of Mr. Obama are only predictions for what they might have lined up for him and do not reflect any personal belief about Obama, his past or his ability to lead.

    -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

    by goldberry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:20:42 AM PDT

  •  you left out the part where she (4+ / 0-)

    passes out lemons.

    Anyone who advocates, supports, defends, rationalizes, or excuses torture has pus for brains and a case of scurvy for a conscience. - James Wolcott

    by rasbobbo on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:22:41 AM PDT

  •  what about the bit where she says she (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    leonard145b, planetclaire4

    withdraws so as to spend more time with her family?

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:32:27 AM PDT

  •  If I saw this out of her (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    goldberry, sap, global citizen

    I might be backing her.

    Keep dreaming.

    When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

    by onanyes on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:34:41 AM PDT

  •  It would be cool. (8+ / 0-)

    But you do realize what the headlines would be..

    "Bitter Clinton blames press for defeat".

    Presidential politics is like jumping into raw sewage with your mouth open -- Batfish

    by Frank on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:35:42 AM PDT

  •  I wish to God she would say something like that. (4+ / 0-)

    Her tragedy is that she won't.  I believe that she is genuinely afraid of her critics, and  thinks she can win them over, if she doesn't challenge them.  It's a crying shame, but it makes her to my mind both unelectable and unworthy to be America's first woman President.  Every woman has had to face the decision to be accommodating and be liked or to be assertive and be  true to one's beliefs and called a bitch.  It's hard to respect someone who failed a decision that we, as women have to make every day.

    Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. --Molly Ivins

    by sap on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:37:00 AM PDT

    •  You are absolutely right (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Gabriele Droz, sap

      nothing ventured, nothing gained.  
      Now's the time to do it.

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:41:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Would you be afraid of a pack of wolves? (3+ / 0-)

      Her critics are coming from all sides in the media and it is hate filled just like on this bog.  How does one approach an attack such as she is enduring?  I would dare say that if Obama and Edwards had to come up with real answers and defend themselves equally they wouldn't seem like such leaders to you either.  Obama would fall all over his words and fall apart in the face of what she encounters.

      •  That's why she should go on the offensive (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        tabbycat in tenn, Gabriele Droz, sap

        Who the fuck cares what the media is going to say?  Does it look like George Bush loses sleep over pissing the press off?

        -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

        by goldberry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:53:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If you read David Brock's (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        planetclaire4

        Blinded By the Right, or any other of a number of books about the politics of the 1990's you see that a lot of her critics are the basest, craziest kind of liars.  It would be hell to be the focus of that much frothing pathology, I agree.  But her voting record as well as her campaign style show that she cares more about winning over the lunatics than building her own party.  I want her to stand up for herself, and in doing that, stand up for the rest of us.

        Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. --Molly Ivins

        by sap on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:02:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Her voting record ... (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Gabriele Droz

          ... is very progressive but I will admit she has been playing it very safe.  It is time she just let her hair down.

          -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

          by goldberry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:04:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Her vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            planetclaire4

            undermined every and any progressive she has made. I voted for her when she first ran for the senate.  I was glad to see her in a position to exercise her gifts, as  I always thought she was wasted as First Lady.  The Kyl-Lieberman amendment was another backdoor to endless war, and everyone knew it.  By giving the Bush's a potential in to a new war she undermined funding for domestic issues, she undermined diplomacy, she undermined the security of thousands of people world-wide, all in hopes of looking mighty mighty. Her failure to challenge the premises of declaring a foreign military a terrorist organization shows rather than strength her fundamental gut-quivering weakness.

            Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. --Molly Ivins

            by sap on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:13:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The Kyl-Lieberman resolution was *not* ... (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Gabriele Droz, Rumarhazzit

              ... a backdoor to another war.  It was a toothless "opinion" that, had it not passed, Cheney would have ignored anyway.  
              What it WAS was a political wedgie designed specifically to alienate you from Clinton because there was no way in hell she could be a viable nominee against a Republican by voting "no".  
              And who managed to get out of voting at all bu claiming he couldn't get back to DC on time?  
              That's right, Mr. Obama.  I would not be shocked to find out that he knew what was up and deliberately avoided it.  
              No, that wouldn't surprise me at all.

              -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

              by goldberry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:20:03 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm not yet an Obama supporter. (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                planetclaire4

                I don't care who gets the nomination so long as it's not Clinton.  And if this was a trap, shouldn't Hillary have had the good sense not to walk into it? Apparently, Obama did.  

                Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. --Molly Ivins

                by sap on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:34:57 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  riiiiight (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  planetclaire4

                  I guess he just felt he couldn't afford to take the heat.  
                  It's a brilliant move on his part, but what does it tell you about how he would have voted?  
                  So, we give him points for dodging politically sensitive votes?  
                  And I'm supposed to feel comfortable with that?  

                  -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

                  by goldberry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:40:35 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  There's something to be said for not taking the (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    planetclaire4

                    bait.  If Hillary absolutely had to vote on this issue, and I don't concede that, she should have voted no.  There is no getting around that.  

                    Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. --Molly Ivins

                    by sap on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:47:41 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  But you *still* do not know how Obama (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      planetclaire4

                      would have voted.  Everyone else in the senate is on record with a committed vote one way or the other, but NOT Obama.  
                      You can see it as not taking the bait.  I call it deliberate obfuscation and cowardice.  He doesn't get any brownie points for it except by people who prefer political games to actual positions on issues.  And since there is no data point recorded for this vote, we are left to speculate what it might have been.  
                      Speculation could be wrong and you might not know until it's too late.  

                      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

                      by goldberry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:59:33 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  So my choice is between (1+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        planetclaire4

                        someone who failed to speak up, someone who was not in office to vote and someone who made the absolutely wrong vote.  Tell me something I don't know!

                        I know that Clinton made the wrong vote, and that she made it AFTER having voted to go to Iraq, and after refusing to apologize or show any doubts about having participated in a long, ongoing worldwide clusterfuck.

                        So yeah, I don't know what Obama (or Edawards for that matter)will do if presented with no way out of making these choices. But I've seen Clinton make the wrong choices over and over and over again.

                        It's the lady or the tiger.

                        Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. --Molly Ivins

                        by sap on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:07:17 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  But *did* she make a wrong vote? (0+ / 0-)

                          If the vote was meaningless and carried no authority but instead signalled her toughness on state sponsors of terrorism, was it the wrong vote?  It was a symbolic vote, that much is true but it was never more than that.  And Wesley Clark, a strong anti-war general didn't see a problem with it because back in February of 2007, she supported a different measure that would specifically prohibit the Bushies from going to war with Iran without congressional authorization.  But who remembered that?  
                          In fact, I have read somewhere that Obama and Clinton had differing views wrt Iran.  I'll have to go look up the links but there has been a deliberate attempt to fuzzify Obama's positions on Foreign policy.  Now, why is that?  

                          -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

                          by goldberry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:17:00 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  If the vote was meaningless (1+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:
                            planetclaire4

                            why not vote against it?  Why not take a stand?  Wasn't the original authorization for the Iraq war supposed to be meaningless as well?  
                            And did she signal toughness?  Iran doesn't seem intimidated, and it shows one more time that Clinton can be bullied into acting like a bully.

                            Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. --Molly Ivins

                            by sap on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:20:44 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                            •  Correction (0+ / 0-)

                              The vote was meaningless in the sense that it did not authorize any action.  It was symbolic in the sense that it told you what the candidates were thinking about the issue.  See the link I posted below on Obama's thoughts on the matter.

                              -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

                              by goldberry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:22:43 AM PDT

                              [ Parent ]

                              •  So it's okay that she symbollically (1+ / 0-)

                                Recommended by:
                                planetclaire4

                                declared a sovereign nation's army a terrorist organization?  
                                You're right on one count: it does show us where Clinton's thoughts were. They were far from the consequences of sabre-rattling, and long-divorced from her previous "meaningless" vote to scare some far-flung ruler.  That, to my mind is unforgiveable.

                                Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. --Molly Ivins

                                by sap on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:34:36 AM PDT

                                [ Parent ]

                            •  And here's another quote (0+ / 0-)

                              This one has been cited in many places all over the web.  It is from a Chicago Tribune interview in September 2004.  

                              [T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?'

                              "He added, '[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in' given the ongoing war in Iraq. 'On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.' Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if 'violent Islamic extremists' were to 'take over'," Joshua Frank wrote January 22, 2005, for Antiwar.com.[1]

                              There are other citations and I'm sure we could spend all day tracking all of them down but what this points to is that Obama was more than willing to bomb Iran before it became a politically dangerous position to take among the base.  
                              So, he chickened out and didn't vote.  Now, I don't know about you, but I'd like to know what it is I'm voting for and it had better not just be ephemeral good feelings from inspirational speeches.

                              -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

                              by goldberry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:33:24 AM PDT

                              [ Parent ]

                              •  Yes Obama chickened out. (1+ / 0-)

                                Recommended by:
                                planetclaire4

                                I thought this thread was about Clinton.  

                                Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. --Molly Ivins

                                by sap on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:36:50 AM PDT

                                [ Parent ]

                                •  And yet... (0+ / 0-)

                                  ...very few diaries about Clinton go to the end without someone bringing up that fricking Kyl-Lieberman resolution.  

                                  If you bring it up, you have to hear all of the ugly details.  She took a bad rap; Obama skated.  You tell me who is the risk taker and who is the cunning political calculator who may be leading us all down a merry road to destruction.  

                                  -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

                                  by goldberry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:40:18 AM PDT

                                  [ Parent ]

                                  •  She could have voted no. n/t (0+ / 0-)

                                    Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. --Molly Ivins

                                    by sap on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:43:26 AM PDT

                                    [ Parent ]

                                  •  You seem convinced that she had to vote (0+ / 0-)

                                    Recommended by:
                                    planetclaire4

                                    on it.  But why, to your mind, is it okay that she voted 'yes'?  Why is it not inexcusable that she did not vote 'no'?

                                    Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. --Molly Ivins

                                    by sap on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:51:34 AM PDT

                                    [ Parent ]

                                    •  Because as the resolution is written... (0+ / 0-)

                                      ...it would be foolish to vote no.  It condemns Iran for supporting Hezbollah and Hamas and giving them money.  It recommends shutting down Iran's ability to finance them.  How is it possible to vote no on that?  My own senators, no warmongers, voted yes.  Dick Durbin, who is Illinois senior senator voted yes even though he voted no on the IWR.  
                                      And a presidential voting no on it would be held up as an example of a typical Democratic weakling by the GOP.  It would have scored points in the base but the base does not win elections by itself.  And since the most harmful paragraphs of the resolution were stripped out of it, there was no reason NOT to vote no.  The fauz outrage over it and the idea that it authorized war with Iran was over the top rhetoric.  It did no such thing.  
                                      Even if Cheney had used it as an excuse to go to war with Iran its absence would not have prevented Cheney from doing whatever the fuck he pleased.  
                                      So, instead of asking me why she voted yes, why don't you do a thought experiment on what would have happened if she had voted no.  Would the base have taken to her in great numbers?  Probably not.  They just wouldn't have condemned her.  So it was a no net gain with us.  But would it help her with the independents and stupid soccer moms out there?  yeah, probably.  
                                      But kossacks did not think that far ahead.  They just pounced.  

                                      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

                                      by goldberry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 12:00:45 PM PDT

                                      [ Parent ]

                                      •  The kossacks pounced? (0+ / 0-)

                                        Bollocks. She is a public official and presidential candidate who made a lousy decision, and there in a country where freedom of expression is still technically legal we have the right to call her on it and with draw our support from her candidcacy.

                                        And my outrage is not 'fauz'. It is real.  Yeah Cheney will do as he wants.  I for one would like someone as smart and well-connected as Hillary Clinton to stand up to him for once and say NO.  If it was, as you continually assert, symbolic, what would have been the harm of taking a stand?  Would the soccer moms have noticed?  Probably not, but I would have, and it's not just the soccer moms that presidential candidates have to win over.  The last two presidential campaigns prove that beyond dispute.

                                        Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. --Molly Ivins

                                        by sap on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 12:18:10 PM PDT

                                        [ Parent ]

                                        •  As you please (0+ / 0-)

                                          Yes, the Kossacks pounced.  It was orchestrated by John Edwards Kossacks.  They were right on it.  That's not just speculation.  We can go to the archives.  They took advantage of a strategic opening.  
                                          And sure, they had every right to do it.  
                                          And sure, you have every right to demand purity on a symbolic vote.  
                                          And that it why Kyl-Lieberman was so successful in benching Hillary.  The person who put it together knew it was going to have this effect.  And that is why Obama skirted it.  But as we can see from the links, Obama is maybe even more hawkish than Hillary on the subject but he suffers no penalty.  
                                          But this shole issue tells me more about YOU than either of the candidates.  It tells me that you are very sensitive to persuasive rhetoric.  That was Edwards gift.  Unfortunately, it didn't help him much.  But it sure helped Obama.

                                          -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

                                          by goldberry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 12:26:13 PM PDT

                                          [ Parent ]

                                          •  And you're impervious to rhetoric? (0+ / 0-)

                                            You keep telling me that I'm repeating Dowdisms, that the only reason I don't support Clinton s because I've absorbed the media play on her.  a)You don't know the first thing about me. b) there are valid, substantial reasons that Hillary Clinton will not win the presidential nomination.
                                            Get used to it.

                                            Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. --Molly Ivins

                                            by sap on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 12:30:08 PM PDT

                                            [ Parent ]

                                            •  Give it a rest (0+ / 0-)

                                              yes, much of the negative shit that has crept into our anti-Hillary commentary started with Maureen Dowd, whether you realize it or not.  It is a well known fact with much documentation.  There's also another thread of it originating with Sally Quinn.  

                                              Hillary may win it, if she studies up on game theory, or she may not.  It depends on many factors.  

                                              But if she loses, and you do not know what you're getting in return, then we may all lose.  

                                              -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

                                              by goldberry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 12:40:16 PM PDT

                                              [ Parent ]

                          •  It was the wrong way to vote. (1+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:
                            sap

                            Voting aye gave her seal of approval to the Bush/Cheney/Hadley meme that Iran, with its tanking economy, lack of any airforce, annual military budget the size of Finland's, is Our Mortal Enemy.  (Need I point out, that meme is one small, but telling part of the parcel of everything that has made our current foreign policy a disaster.)  It was a strawman to take our attention away from actual problems in the Middle East.  If she had been smart, she would have stood up on the Senate floor and said so.  If she had done that, despite not liking a lot about HRC, I'd have been impressed enough to like her candidacy.  But no, apparently she wanted to prove she could be as big a wrong-headed dick as any neo-con.  Not good for our country.

                            Please, God, don't let the Democratic party make me vote for some pinhead who believes in the GWOT. God grinned...

                            by planetclaire4 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 12:00:15 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Here's a link (0+ / 0-)

                          From the Chicago Sun-Times from last March.  Obama: Iran threatens all of us

                          It sure sounds to me like he would have voted yes on Kyl-Lieberman, which may be why he avoided it.  

                          -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

                          by goldberry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:21:21 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm not an Obama advocate. (1+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:
                            planetclaire4

                            I'm glad to have the link, of course.  I want to be informed about potential presidents.  But please don't write me off as a someone who's already made up her mind about everything.  I just know in my gut that I don't support Hillary Clinton's candidacy, and am doing my best to explain why that is.  It's something I've had to struggle with, as a feminist and someone who has supported her in the past.  I've found her to be genuinely disappointing as a leader.  I don;'t think she is the right person to be President at this time.  As you've pointed out it's difficult to get clear about Obama, because he's surrounded by a lot of hype.  But I don't think that the fuzziness around him makes Clinton one whit more appealing.    

                            Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. --Molly Ivins

                            by sap on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:28:24 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                            •  To each her own (1+ / 0-)

                              Recommended by:
                              jarhead5536

                              I've been disappointed with Clinton's campaign.  I think she's played it too safe and I really didn't like her IWR vote.  But I am not going to immediately write her off because I have been hearing 15 years worth of Maureen Dowdisms soaking into the collective subconscious about her likeability.  I don't want to paint my toenails with her.  I want her to run the government.

                              -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

                              by goldberry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:36:02 AM PDT

                              [ Parent ]

                              •  You're kind of pissing me off now. (1+ / 0-)

                                Recommended by:
                                planetclaire4

                                I've not cited once any Dowdisms.  I have not immediately written her off.  I believe that I have judged her on her record, and that I, as an informed citizen have been fair.  You can't really justify her record, so you throw Barack Obama's media hype in my face to obfuscate the subject at hand, namely, the record of one Hillary Rodham Clinton.

                                Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. --Molly Ivins

                                by sap on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:42:01 AM PDT

                                [ Parent ]

                                •  I understand (0+ / 0-)

                                  People just hate her.  They don't know why she's so cold and stubborn and vindictive and unpleasant.  She just is.  
                                  Just like we didn't exactly know why we hated Debbie Smith in seventh grade.  It wasn't that she did anything specifically to piss us off,  But it was just accepted that she was a loathesome person and didn't deserve our respect.  We talked about it over lunch with our friends, who also didn't like her for unspecified reasons.  And who knows where they got that idea?  It's like an urban legend.  

                                  You wouldn't be the first person to say that they don't like me.  I'm like that.  I'm a bit on the analytical side and I don't like people pandering to my emotions to get my vote so I tend to make people uncomfortable.  It's fine by me.  

                                  Debbie was a friend of mine.

                                  -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

                                  by goldberry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 12:07:50 PM PDT

                                  [ Parent ]

                                  •  Screw this condescending chongo. (0+ / 0-)

                                    None of what I've been writing about has been coming from a place of emotion.  
                                    By, the way, I WAS Debbie.  And I know that Debbie deep down despised you for pitying her.

                                    Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. --Molly Ivins

                                    by sap on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 12:20:45 PM PDT

                                    [ Parent ]

                                    •  I didn't pity Debbie (0+ / 0-)

                                      I just didn't indulge in piling on for no reason.  

                                      You can choose to believe what everyone says, that's a Fox News specialty, or you can make conclusions based on observation.  That's mine.  

                                      I fail to see why that is condescending.  It certainly will not stop anyone from voting based on some vague feeling of hopeful euphoria.  It just means that I know who has been the "authentic" person in this race and who has really been blurring the lines in order to appeal to everyone.  

                                      You can do whatever you damn well please.  Just don't whine that you were "had" later when you find out that the person who you voted for is not the pne that you actually got.

                                      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

                                      by goldberry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 12:33:14 PM PDT

                                      [ Parent ]

                                      •  It is condescending for you (0+ / 0-)

                                        to write me off as a fox-drenched Hillary hater, when really I just don't think she would be a very good President and have been very clear about why I think that.  You assume that because I don't agree with you that I'm some kind kool-aid drinking tool.  You keep talking about Hillary, the media phenomenon. I'm talking about Hillary Clinton, US senator.  I give two shits what the media say.  I read multiple newspapers and make up my own mind.  I have not decided between Edwards and Obama, but based on everything I've read about her, I couldn't be happier that Clinton's cooked her own goose.

                                        Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. --Molly Ivins

                                        by sap on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 12:50:48 PM PDT

                                        [ Parent ]

  •  You're dead on, but (7+ / 0-)

    none of this can be done by solo heroics (alas, the central problem with the Obama Awakening).

    Unless we all work shoulder to shoulder, the way the GOP did for 20 years, stigmatizing the press' incompetence (this time, not merely alleged, but real), we'll be played for suckers.

    •  I wholeheartedly agree (4+ / 0-)

      That means that the big bloggers can't indulge in piling on with the petty shit just because it is good for their favorite candidates and bad for the others.  Bloggers have to demand higher standards and practice them religiously.  
      It is perfectly Ok to attack the Republicans vigorously but we damaged Hillary by going along with the media attacks on her.  It's one thing to reject her on the issues but this "I can't put my finger on it but I just don't like/trust her" crap has got to stop.

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:45:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Big Bloggers (tm) (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        daria g, YellowDogBlue, planetclaire4

        have been pretty good about perspective. Atrios, for example, only prods our candidates when they slip into RW wankerisms, and he's even-handed.

        Kos is the only top tier blogger who comes to mind who pulls petty crap, and the dKos community has no sense of history more than 24 hours old, so is little more than a partisan shit blizzard.

        But the new progressive movement (that Kos has paradoxically been central to organizing) is  fundamentally organized around undoing the MSM/GOP's grasp on the public debate. Media Matters, MoveOn, the Center for American Progress, Josh Marshall, Paul Krugman, and most ascendant name brand liberals and institutions build and enforce the liberal brand.

        Parenthetically, this is one of the many puzzling aspects of Obamarama. How could "liberals" flock to a movement that aims to undo all of the work of the past few years, abandon the politics of moral contrast, and rally to the cause of reconciliation with criminals and their accomplices in the press? It not as if it's not obvious that the press will savage Obama when it's his turn, like you say. Live my the media narrative, die by the media narrative.

        •  I can't argue with that (3+ / 0-)

          You are absolutely right on every count.  
          And even if the majority of the country wants Obama, the race will be made to look so close that it will be easy to steal in a couple of battleground states.
          Yep, I see social security means testing and a non-universal healthcare proposal in our future.  But the children will have their way.

          -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

          by goldberry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:37:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly Right (3+ / 0-)

      If the hypocrisy of the current political/press situation angers us, we need to do something about it.  Unfortunately, such concerted action isn't likely because of the types of people we are. The right has taken advantage of this for years and along with the "cultural divide" have used it to maintain power.

      In fact, the right takes advantage of our general ethics a lot. And it pisses me off.

      I remember a John-Wayne anti-communist movie "Big Jim McLain" where James Arness pleads with Wayne to get down in the mud and use the same tactics as the enemy. You know: lie, cheat, fear-monger, degrade, blackmail, and other 1950's communist things. Wayne, being John Wayne, expresses sympathy but in the end does it by the book and ultimately wins.

      I too grew up with this ethic - fight the good fight and you'll win. Don't stoop as low as those you're fighting or you'll end up as bad as your enemy. It sounds really good on paper, but are we being taken for suckers? I don't think it's time to lie, cheat, steal and those 21st century Republican things, but maybe it's time not to be afraid of a good fight about what the press has been doing for the last 30 years.

      I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man - Thomas Jefferson

      by Twistyman on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:08:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I will not watch anymore commentary programs (4+ / 0-)

    on CNN and MSNBC.  My chances of fighting back againt the corporate media is miniscule, but I can at least not watch their lying, spinning, an promotion of candidates.  I don't understand why what they do is not considered illegal.  It is so blatant.  I am begging people to stop watching FOX news and to stop watching the Offenders on the other entertainment news network.

    I would like her to say outright how complicit they are in destroying our democracy through their outright attempts to ruin our means to communicate and to really know what our government is doing to us.

    She might also as them to define what Obama means by Change and Hope and make him state outright what he is doing.  I personally have not seen a single definition or explanation of what these tow words are supposed to mean to him.

  •  Mark Penn, not the press, sank Hillary (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    leonard145b, Johnny Rapture

    I agree that Dowd is going to return to her sarcastic. bitter attacks on Democrats, but she peaked years ago in her profession. Now Dowd sounds bitter and tired, not funny.

    Hillary needed to focus on her vision and her effectiveness at solving problems, not her Washington experience. When she went on the attack, her campaign imploded.

    "It's the planet, stupid."

    by FishOutofWater on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:47:33 AM PDT

    •  What attack? (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Hairy Legs

      The problem is she bought into the notion that women who attack are seen as a negative so she didn't attack at all.  
      Think about it.  Her best debate moments were when she took on Russert and when she went full force against John Edwards.  They were highlighted and we liked it.  But she pulled her punches so many times because she was afraid of a media backlash that she completely gelded herself.  
      If she wants to win, she has to not give a flying fuck about the media filter.  A woman on the attack makes her own news.

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 09:51:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  My fantasy Hillary press conference... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    planetclaire4

    "Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  I'm announcing today that I'm withdrawing from the campaign, and that I will support whoever becomes the Democratic nominee for president of the United States.  It's more important that the Democratic Party win in November than it is for me to fulfill my destiny.

    Recent primary results have shown me that lots of money, the fading memory and coattails of my husband, and the endorsement of the entire Washington D.C. party establishment, are together still not enough to win the hearts and minds of Democratic party voters.  The seem not to want more of the same from their elected officials...they seem not to want politicians who are in the thrall of corporate lobbyists.  They can't seem to forget the role I played in enabling the Bush Administration and furthering its agenda.  They don't seem fooled anymore when I change my image, my personna, my rhetoric from week to week on the advice of my highly-paid campaign advisors.  They don't seem fooled anymore when I play the victim.  They can't seem to understand that I'm the insurgent who has been working for change all this time.

    In short...it didn't work.  Thank you for giving me such a huge buildup over the past year, and for helping to sell my message of inevitability to intimidate my opponents.  You can't win 'em all."

    Ah, the dreams...

    •  Hey, thanks for playing! n/t (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Radiowalla, Gabriele Droz

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:00:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry... (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        sap, planetclaire4

        I know that was probably uncalled for, and I do respect your views.  I just have a lot of trouble with the victim thing.  If anyone has been shafted by the press in this campaign, I think it's my own candidate, John Edwards.  Personally, I thought they were going to give Hillary a pass until she was assured of the nomination, and THEN pile on.

    •  I'm Confused (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      goldberry, Hairy Legs

      I mean, I can see why Hillary might be making a withdrawal speech, after all the future remains unwritten, but I can't for the life of me understand why she would fill more than half of it with Republican talking points against her.

      Maybe I need a richer fantasy life.

      I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man - Thomas Jefferson

      by Twistyman on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 10:17:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I've noticed a certain tendency... (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        planetclaire4

        ..to call ANY criticism of Hillary a "right-wing talking point".

        Okay, how's this:  She's not progressive enough for my taste, and neither is her husband.  And she should have dissavowed her vote on the Iraq war.  

        I'll add that to the second draft of her speech.

        •  Come on (0+ / 0-)

          They don't seem fooled anymore when I change my image, my personna, my rhetoric from week to week on the advice of my highly-paid campaign advisors.

          You berate me for calling this a "Republican talking point?" You might agree with it, but that doesn't change what it is or how it corrupts the political process.

          I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man - Thomas Jefferson

          by Twistyman on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:00:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your boxed quote is not a Repub talking point, (0+ / 0-)

            It's a Regardless-of-Alignment Observer's talking point, too blatant to avoid.  She brought it on herself by thinking we're too easily distracted not to notice the shape-shifting.  Sorry.

            Please, God, don't let the Democratic party make me vote for some pinhead who believes in the GWOT. God grinned...

            by planetclaire4 on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 11:47:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  i suppose if she didn't hug Murdoch (0+ / 0-)

    i might buy in more here.hillary and rupert

    George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

    by nathguy on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 12:11:44 PM PDT

Permalink | 73 comments