The Carville Flap: Another Illustration of ‘the Clinton Rules’ in Action
You know, an Obama campaign co-chair recently compared Bill Clinton to Joe McCarthy—-a truly dire insult from the point of view of anyone old enough to remember what McCarthy was and did. And the insult was generated not because of anything Clinton said or did but because of something McPeak assumed he meant or might have meant or could be construed to have meant, despite the fact that he didn’t in fact say what McPeak said he said. The reaction of the Hillary-demonizing media and punditocracy to McPeak’s response to a meaning he had to wring out of Bill Clinton’s words? "…………………."
Sure it was almost too silly to dignify with a response, but it was an interesting illustration of how there is really nothing too bad or too absurd for people in Obama’s camp to say about the Clintons—or for those with a large media platform to say. Cf. Andrew Sullivan’s allegations that Hillary’s proposal that Obama run on a joint ticket as Vice President of the United States and therefore as the logical successor to the presidency amounted to an instance ‘white entitlement.’ Again with the accusations or implications of racism!–another dire insult as and routinely lightly and absurdly flung at the Clintons as though racism weren’t a grave offense against God, humanity, and common decency.
So then Carville called Richardson a Judas, to the shock and horror of every Obama supporter and every pro-Obama pundit or Obama in the United States. Shock! Horror! Calls for Carville to resign!
And yet Carville was only expressing the rage—in trenchant Carville-style hyperbole, natch—that many supporters felt on hearing the news.
For 15 years, Richardson served with no small measure of distinction as the representative of New Mexico’s 3rd Congressional District. But he gained national stature — and his career took off — when President Bill Clinton appointed him U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and later made him energy secretary.
So, when asked on Good Friday about Richardson’s rejection of the Clintons, the metaphor was too good to pass by. I compared Richardson to Judas Iscariot. (And Matthew Dowd is right: Had it been the Fourth of July, I probably would have called him Benedict Arnold.)
I believed that Richardson’s appointments in Bill Clinton’s administration and his longtime personal relationship with both Clintons, combined with his numerous assurances to the Clintons and their supporters that he would never endorse any of Sen. Hillary Clinton‘s opponents, merited a strong response. (WaPo)
Call me old-fashioned, but isn’t calling someone a "Judas" strikes me as a pretty standard response to a perception that one has betrayed one’s friends? In my neck of the woods, it is. I’ve been doing it all my life.
Of course there was bound to be blowback. Posting on Carville’s remarks, I said that it would probably take only about five seconds for someone to accuse Hillary of thinking she’s Jesus, even though Carville does not officially OR unofficially speak for her.. Carville again: ""Keith Olbermann, about two degrees shy of the temperature necessary for self-combustion, quipped, "So if he’s Judas in this analogy, who’s Jesus?""(WaPo)
I missed Olbermann’s—or, as he’s now known among Hillary supporters, Obamaman’s—comments because, like everyone who goes on perversely loving Hillary against MSNBC’s better judgment and thinking she’s the better candidate by a moonlight mile, I have stopped paying attention to MSNBC, which doesn’t seem to need or want me as a viewer.
But of course the uproar was to be expected. It’s in the RULES. You know the rules, right? Under the Obama rules, no one, even a campaign co-chair, speaks for Obama however over-the-top and out of line the anti-Clinton rhetoric. Under the Clinton rules, on the other hand, any old friend, campaign donor, supporter, or lowly campaign worker in the smallest of small towns becomes her ‘surrogate.’
Of course, under the Obama rules, a pro-Obama media figure such as Olbermann can say anything he wants to about the Clintons and that’s okay because anything bad about the Clintons is true; while under the Clinton rules, a pro-Hillary Clinton media figure such as Carville must not say anything bad about anyone connected to Obama because pro-Hillary media figures are expected to be decently ashamed of their advocacy and keep quiet about it.
Carville goes on:
I know enough to know that comparing a former Cabinet secretary and sitting governor to Judas is inflammatory and provocative. I expected the coverage that it evoked.
Was it a desperate gambit for attention? Was I just trying to prove my point that both Samantha Power‘s resignation from the Obama campaign for calling Sen. Clinton a monster and the Obama campaign hysterically promoting Geraldine Ferraro‘s misguided statements were equally silly and superficial?. (WaPo)
No, he says. He was speaking from the heart—a heart which, I have heard Carville’s detractors recently allege, would prove on close examination to be as undersized as the Grinch’s before his epiphany. But Carville’s advocacy of progressive causes refutes any such argument, as does his loyalty to the Clintons. Whatever his heart’s actual dimensions, it happens to contain a sizable compartment of affection and respect for, and loyalty to, the Clintons. So Carville, like the rest of us who value Hillary, was furious with Bill Richardson. When asked for a comment, he spoke as he felt:
I was saying what I felt as an individual who — with no encouragement from the Clintons but as someone who is proud to consider himself a friend of theirs — thought that Richardson had done something deeply disloyal….
I believe that loyalty is a cardinal virtue. Nowhere in the world is loyalty so little revered and tittle-tattle so greatly venerated as in Washington. I was a little-known political consultant until Bill Clinton made me. When he came upon hard times, I felt it my duty –whatever my personal misgivings — to stick by him. At the very least, I would have stayed silent. And maybe that’s my problem with what Bill Richardson did. Silence on his part would have spoken loudly enough.
Most of the stuff I’ve ever said is pretty insignificant and by in large has been said off the cuff and without much thought to the
potential consequences. That was not the case in this instance. Bill Richardson’s response was that the Clinton people felt they were entitled to the presidency.
I must interject here. “Entitled to the presidency….” No, that’s not insulting at all, is it? And yet, I hear no voices raised in the media when this ridiculous allegation is made against the Clintons. But again, again: whatever anyone says about the Clintons that’s hyperbolic, speculative, wrong, or flat-out ludicrous is presumptively true and therefore unworthy even of comment.
Carville continues:
In my mind, that is a debatable hypothesis. But, even more than that, I know that a former president of the United
States who appointed someone to two Senate-confirmed positions is entitled to have his phone calls returned.(WaPo).
Yes, that does seem to be rather a slap in the face, doesn’t it? And yet the Clintons, if not Carville (because if we’re going with the religious metaphor, let us take it all the way), turned the other cheek to the extent of keeping silent about their disappointment.
If Richardson was going to turn on the Clintons the way he did, I see no problem in saying what I said. Because if loyalty is one virtue, another is straight talk. And if Democrats can’t handle that, they’re going to have a hard time handling a Republican nominee who is seeking the presidency with that as his slogan. (WaPo; emphasis added)
To take the religious metaphor another step further since I seem in the vein: Amen.
So, Like many infuriated Hillary supporters—sick to death of the media’s and the punditocracy’s attempts to delegitimize our candidate by giving her a reality-show villainness’s carefully selective story-line— I want to thank Carville for speaking out on her behalf, however hyperbolically. I’d rather that everyone dial back the rhetoric, but I am well and truly fed up with seeing one set of rules applied to Obama’s side of the argument and another set applied to Clinton’s.
As to Carville himself: just this once, I’d like to see Obama rules applied to a Clinton supporter in the media.
CROSS-POSTED AT BUCK NAKED POLITICS
Share This
Related Posts
-
Not the Worst and Not the Best U.S. President
Posted on Apr 26, 2013
-
John McCain Defends President’s Speech After Gun Vote
Posted on Apr 19, 2013
-
NRA Liars and Congressional Cowards
Posted on Apr 18, 2013
-
The Invasion of Our Nation Goes Unpunished (Al-Iraq News, Iraq)
Posted on Apr 15, 2013
Damozel, I agree both camps are being hyper-sensitive to various insults, etc. For instance, I think the brouhaha over Bill Clinton's mention of “two people who love the country” debating each other was not meant as a direct insult to Obama. Often this stuff doesn't come from the candidates but “surrogates” and hangers-on, and it's not unreasonable to thnk thay have spoken out of turn and don't reflect the feelings of the candidates.
But part of the issue with Carville and McPeak was context. McCarthy was a nasty guy, etc. But he certainly doen't rise to the level the biblically traitorius Judas, . And there is no McCarthy-related religious holiday directly connected to the insult that just happpens to be “right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out (Jesus) for 30 pieces of silver.” You do see the difference, I hope. It's an insult on a whole other level.
But worse than that even, in a clearer reflection of the “Clinton Rules,” Senator Clinton … Well, I'll let one the Clinton's strongest defenders explain it, far better than I can:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/03/28…
That's how I have come to see the “Clinton Rules” applied. There are no rules.
Must do better at copy editing…
Do not question Barak Obama. He cannot stand up to the scrutiny. His people know this and so they have done what they did to the gop and GWB. Destroy them with a barage of a 100 trillion demeaning remarks until their version of what is became etched in stone.
Lamblast Hillary back to the stone ages. It worked on Bush and the GOP and it has worked on Hillary. The job is just not complete yet.
They are bullies. They have bullied the press. They have bullied anyone who will stand against Barak Obama. No matter the reason.
Hillary is not worthy. McCain is not worthy. Only Obama is worthy to rise to the exalted title of King Barak. Even my old auntie was bullied by Obama supporters for daring to voice her reason for not supporting Barak Obama.
I totally agree with the Clinton rules vs.Obama rules.
McCain is also getting the suede glove treatment.
Nobody rremembers the episode on CNN when a rocket whizzed by as McCain was on camera explaining how safe for shopping Badghdad was. If that had been a Clinton, the shouts of “LIES LIES “would still be reverberating in news recaps and blogs.
I do think, however, that Hillary has made some serious mistakes, providing ammunition for those eager to say: ” See, she's evil!”
Even though I think she has been treated extremely unfairly, at some point we have to accept that life just isn't fair and you have to play the hand you've been dealt. How she decides to play her hand from here on out will be her responsibility.
I've always liked James Carville, and it should come as a surprise to no one that he can and does make outrageous statements sometimes. Carville, and by extension Clinton, could be called Judas by Bill Richardson, but they won't be. I fully understand the anger and denial and the other well-known emotions that accompany loss. Since the Texas and Ohio primaries, 45 super delegates have declared for Obama, while Clinton has lost five. Trying to portray the super delegates as traitors is a little over-the-top, as is threatening the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. It is almost certain that Obama will win the nomination, and I expect that about a month from now, Clinton's supporters will finally have to admit that.
Keith Olbermann has created a phenomenon in the mainstream media. If you look at the MSNBC primetime lineup (Olbermann, Abrams, Olbermann in my market), it is now three hours of solidly liberal news coverage, and its ratings are superb. This is the most exciting trend in mainstream news coverage today, from my admittedly biased perspective. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that Olbermann doesn't like Hillary is yet another reason to support Obama. We need a candidate the press doesn't hate, just as we need a candidate who can speak passionately and persuasively and bring new voters into our political process.
I know it hurts to lose. I just hope that we will all come together behind the candidate who best represents our views and is most likely to implement the policies we favor.
As far as I'm concerned, the fact that Olbermann doesn't like Hillary is yet another reason to support Obama.
Does this mean you think our press should be rooting sections for politicians? Keith Olberman turns my stomach as does Bill Maher. To hear the scathing, hate filled remarks that come from their mouths on a national network is mind boggling.
Im liberal but I believe. Have always believed that the press must remain neutral. Cable news is still news. They still dig for stories. To claim they are something else is doing nothing but diluting the power of the press.
The blog is a powerful new tool, but by and large they report the news that the mainstream media is digging up. If the mainstream media suddenly becomes rooting sections for our favorite candidate then the next leap is the DNC and the GOP buying up newspapers and blogs and television and cable outlets.
What a horrid idea.
Damozel,
I don't understand why so many Clinton supporters want to take up this victimhood mentality. “Clinton rules” are unfair because everyone is so mean to poor innocent Hillary. Why she's as pure as the driven snow. And “Obama rules” are are unfair because everyone gets all dougheyed about him no matter what happens. Ugh. This sense of victimness is pathetic. Where are the Obama rules when it comes to Jeremiah Wright? Where are the Obama rules when it comes to twisting his comments into some new unrecognizable meanings, such as his comment that he would talk with Iran or Norh Korea? Where are the Clinton rules regarding ridiculously exaggerated claims regarding her experience? No, those are taken at face value oddly enough.
I would have been far more impressed with Carville's comments had they been said after the Samantha Power flap. But oddly he was silent then.
Carville knows full well that, regardless of his official standing with the Clinton campaign, he is very closely tied to that campaign in the minds of voters. You don't get to put that mantle down when it suits your purposes. If you are going to be a sanctioned cheerleader for the campaign, the campaign gets stuck with the negative impact of your comments.
What it boils down to is Hillary is going to lose and her supporters are angry about it. So they want to point fingers at everyone else. The media sank her. Obama was mean. Obama supporters were mindless lemmings that never saw the truth. Etc. Etc. Etc.
The truth is that the Clinton campaign ran as an incumbent in this primary for far too long. They dismissed Obama as serious threat until he was, in fact, leading. And now they don't understand why they can't regain the lead.
FTR, if the roles were reversed and it was Clinton leading and Obama chasing, this primary would already be over. Only because it is Clinton is this race even a matter of debate. Barring a massive scandal regarding Obama there is no way she can catch him. But that doesn't change the fact that we continue to hear from the Hillary camp that the fight must go on.
And after PA and NC, when she winds up with a net delegate wash, she will say we must wait for Oregon and Kentucky and Puerto Rico. And when that is over she will say that Florida and Michigan must be seated and that we must continue on to Denver. And her supporters will be carrying pitchforks on their march the castle ready to take down the evil Dean/Obama dictatorship.
And it won't be until the Dem leadership gives her the choice between a carrot(Senate Majority Leader, NY Gov, etc) and a baseball bat(ostracism in the Senate and a Senatorial primary fight in 2012), until she finally concedes.
Flyerhawk.
WE rest our case.
Come on; the mainstream media covered McPeak's comments — I don't know what you were (or weren't) paying attention to. The fact that McPeak's comments gained little steam is what you truly seem upset about.
One reason: McPeak is not an integral part of Obama's campaign, nor is he a regular on cable news, national radio, editorial boards, or the Democratic party as a whole for the past X decades.
James Carville is all of those things, in addition to being “in” on the Clinton campaign's daily briefings. Can we not see the difference here?
I have to say that the victimization some Hillary Clinton supporters peddle is very unattractive. It comes off as a desperate and one-sided in its consideration.
Instead of trying to defend “Judas” comments, try discussing how political back-scratching is far more harmful to our country than is endorsing the Presidential candidate you believe is BEST for the country.
From a candidate (Sen. Clinton) and a party who have for years decried Bush's “cronyism,” it appears that anything less than cronyism excuses national comparison to a figure that backstabbed Jesus Christ. Ask yourself why it's no big deal to encourage political kickbacks.
I appreciate your comments, and don't mind the snarky tone too much. I agree with your comment about the blog being a powerful new tool, and applaud the idea of citizen journalism because it makes us think rationally about issues and articulate our thoughts in conversations like this. I noted with interest that broadcast media is feeling the pinch from advertisers diverting increasing numbers of ad buys to online sites. Maybe that will get broadcasters' attention that their abysmal credibility with the public is affecting their bottom line.
And no I don't believe our press should be rooting sessions for politicians, nor corporate-bound propaganda machines, sensationalist purveyors of sex and violence, or mere regurgitators of sound bites from the administration. But the fact is, the mainstream media has been pathetic at investigative journalism and objective reporting for a long time now (think WMD, climate change, war boosterism). To the modern media, “objectivity” is a sound bite from both sides, at best.
News departments are expected to turn a profit, and a handy one at that. This has resulted in a dumbing down of the reporting. Pressure from both advertisers and from the administration have severely affected the stories that get covered, and how they are covered.
The combative nature of unabashedly biased news reporting, such as that on Fox news, but also CNN and MSNBC, has proven to the networks that this is a profitable approach to news. So, as much as I would like for the news to be free of polluting influences of all kinds, I don't believe that is realistic right now. So having cable news programming that is calling the administration on its lies and bad policy decisions is a good thing in my view, because it's the only balance were likely to have in this advertising and profit driven news environment.
Shows like Bill Moyers' excellent offerings and much of BBC (the only major nonprofit TV news source) are exceptions, but won't get the ratings of the more shrill and less substantive swill the MSM serves up most of the time.
Flyerhawk:
I don't think it is an attitude of victimhood, but of resistance. Many, many Dems are sick to death of hearing Hillary bashed and of the blatantly biased treatment she is receiving from the media.
I can't agree that the opinions of Keith Olbermann or of the rest of the media are a good reason to vote for Obama. In fact, that strikes me as a completely specious argument.
That said, I have said what I have said (just to continue the biblical metaphor a little further).
Anyone who wants to argue that it's worse to compare someone to Joseph McCarthy than to Judas is welcome to do so. It's not a contest between insults. I am merely reflecting on the deafness of the media to even the most extreme (and if you know anything about McCarthy and Bill Clinton, it WAS extreme) and unfair statements coming out of Obama's people, compared to the hypersensitivity to anything coming from Hillary's defenders.
If you don't see it, you don't. To carry the biblical metaphor EVEN further: There is none so blind as he who will not see!
PS. (to flyerhawk). As to Carville's not defending Power, he's not appointed to defend ANYONE. he was offended by richardson's actions; and he said what he thought. He's as free to do so, I presume, as Olbermann.
And again, don't confuse 'victimization' with outrage. I don't speak for Hillary, I speak for me, and I think any DETACHED observer would notice the unequal treatment. For example, her excellent speech about getting out of Iraq—how much did you hear about that, compared to the endless—and ultimately tedious—dissection of Obama's mediocre, totally predictable speech on race?
Green Dreams: It may or may not be over. I know Obama's supporters would like to believe this, but as Al Gore said, What's the hurry? There's five months to go. This time in Bill Clinton's campaign he too was pronounced a dead man walking.
In the meantime, reasonable minds differ about whether a Hillary victory is impossible. If you want to believe that, well and good. But don't try to convince me I shouldn't want MY candidate to go on fighting till she decides for herself that it is. Her supporters want her to fight on. If you want to frame this as denial, you may do so. I consider it to be denial on your part and on the part of those who just want her to hand the nomination for the PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES to her rival.
It's not a race to see who gets to be monarch of the Homecoming Court.
“I believe that loyalty is a cardinal virtue. Nowhere in the world is loyalty so little revered and tittle-tattle so greatly venerated as in Washington. I was a little-known political consultant until Bill Clinton made me. When he came upon hard times, I felt it my duty –whatever my personal misgivings — to stick by him.”
To me this really points out the worst aspect of the Clinton political machine. Loyalty to them. Not loyalty to country, not loyalty to future policy, loyalty to them, and the pressure that once you are a part of the family you do nothing to hurt them. That is the most damaging aspect of how she would run things and why her presidency could turn into a potential disaster. Then Carville goes on and on about how the Clintons made Richardson and he owes them.
You might be angry, but to me that mindset is infuriating. It is exactly what I hate most about the Bush presidency as well…..the lying and the coverups and not questioning anything because it's all about loyalty. That's one of the most poisonous views to a democracy.
“Bill Richardson’s response was that the Clinton people felt they were entitled to the presidency.”
I personally felt that he meant the people around Clinton felt the entitlement, not her personally. I don't know if she does (if Carville just says it's debatable and goes on to immediately say that Richardson owes them then that's not a very good defense) but I would give her the benefit of the doubt. The people around her however…
Anyway the McCarthy thing was ridiculous and Obama needs to definitely repudiate it. Regardless of what they think Bill was trying to imply.
Damozel, I'm not saying that Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race. I'm one of the 78% of Democrats who think she should not.
Look, most superdelegates are in Congress, the Senate or, as Richardson, in the administrations of the 50 states. For all of them, it is crucial to have a Democratic president in 2009. If at any time, they become convinced that Senator Clinton cannot take the lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote, they will likely choose to seek party unity behind the candidate who does have the votes. Very few people believe that the superdelegates will overturn the will of voters.
Damozel,
Who suggests that you should vote for ANYONE because a media pundit supports them?
We live in a culture of nonstop news. Countless analysts and advocates constantly pontificating on how the world is, based on their opinion. So we pick and choose particular outlets that suit our purposes. MSNBC has 2 hosts that appear to have clearly gone in favor of Obama. And this is the ONLY thing that Clinton supporters want to focus. They ignore the largely favorable coverage they receive from CBS and, in particular, ABC.
James Carville is a high profile talking head who is closely tied to the Clinton campaign and is on TV every week. Tony McPeak is a former military general that most people couldn't pick out in a lineup. Why would it surprise you that Carville's comments receive more notice?
Hillary and her hangers on have been on the scene for over 15 years. They are very well known. Obama and most of his hangers on are largely unknown at the national level. So yes, there is uneven playing field. But it works both ways. James Carville gets to break out the pom poms every week for Hillary without a peep of criticism(contrast that with the constant attacks Olbermann gets for having a bias for Obama). So when he says something stupid it will get more play than some general that most people have never heard of.
You seem quite determined to look at things through the lens of a ardent Hillary supporter. For instance….
Obama's speech may have been tedious and mediocre(although that opinion seems to be in a distinct minority) but it was CLEARLY more relevant to the news of the week than Hillary giving a speech about at the same time. I don't even know how you can call that bias of any sort. The only thing that people were talking about at the time was Wright and race yet you are surprised that people focused on that speech and not Hillary's stump speech on Iraq?
<cite>This time in Bill Clinton's campaign he too was pronounced a dead man walking.</cite>
Really? Bill Clinton was pronounced a dead man after 80% of the states had voted?
Hillary and her supporters are hoping for a Hail Mary pass to save the day. Maybe it will but it isn't very likely.
We're well past the time where Democrats who support Obama and Democrats who support Clinton need to remember the difference between an opponent and an enemy.
Damozel
The reason why Pastor Wright does not represent Obama is because Pastor Wright does not even remotely sound like Obama.
Hillary is praised as a tough knife fighter, willing and able to take the fight to her enemies. That is supposed to be one of her virtues.
But many Americans are tired of The Clintons and the way they feed good story lines to Republicans, from “THAT WOMAN!!!” to The Ballad of The Battle of Bosnia.
“I don’t recall anyone offering me tea…” Hillary said in March, implying that our Armed Forces allowed her and her daughter and reporters and USO personnel to fly into a War Zone; a lie that destroyed the truth of what was one of her accomplishments!!!
Don’t blame special rules. Blame Hillary. Carville speaks like a Clinton, and acts like a Clinton. His message today was so stupid, but so in keeping with what we know about the Clintons.
If Hillary returns, Carville was saying, Pardons will be for sale as well as Lincoln Bedroom overnights. You have to pay to play and you have to be loyal.
Omerta. The code of The Clintons. I feel sorry for anyone who thinks Hillary is different than The Clintons. If she is, it is a tragedy. But Carville just reminded many of us why we wished they would retire and work on building their considerable fortune.
Both candidates get unfair coverage from the media, look at the whole Wright non-controversy. Actually, the media seems to be hammering both Clinton and Obama because that is where the excitement and thus the ratings are. McCain gets a pass because he is an unimportant factor in the Democratic campaign. Not that I am sure this will change once we have an actual nominee. Also remember Clinton did get a lot of “the inevitable democratic nominee” coverage before super-duper-tsunami Tuesday.
Anyway, there will be ups and downs, that is expected. I think it behooves us liberals (or as in my case, a pinko commie leftist), to say we support a certain candidate, but will support the eventual democratic nominee, whomever that may be, when the decision is finally made in order to defeat McCain in the fall.
In other words, we should be excited and focused on this unique primary, but we should also be just as focused on pulling the rug out from under McBush.
TJProudAmerican: I didn't mention Wright at all. I don't think Wright is an issue because I don't think his views reflect Obama's.
And I will CERTAINLY vote for Obama if he gets the nomination. I'd cut off my right arm before I'd vote for McCain. I'll hold my nose and do it.
I believe that Hillary has been treated unfairly by the media, end of story. I am not going to be argued out of that position because it's based on careful observation. I didn't even start to get angry about it till Olbermann decided to go off on her.
Obviously, we have very different views. I'm aware that for many Obama supporters, Obama can do no wrong. I don't feel that way about Hillary. But what turned me toward her was the disingenuous projections of the Obama camp (and those who sail in it) of their own tactics onto the Clinton campaign. At first, I pointed these out in the mildest possible terms, protesting that the attacks on Clinton could do no one any good.
Then—like a lot of people who didn't feel Obama's spell—I started to get angry.
As I noted here, I spent 20 minutes trying to choose between Hillary and Obama once it was clear that Edwards was out. I honestly didn't know which would be better.
I know now, though. Not that it matters—I am a disenfranchised Floridian.
Keith Olbermann:
Just to clarify, I think the whole business of getting up in arms over something someone other than the candidates says is a crock. I didn't agree with the Clinton campaign getting into a swivet about Power.
But if we're going to play the game of attributing the words of SO-CALLED surrogates to their supposed puppet masters, it ought to apply equally. All these little distinctions—Carville's this or that with respect to the Clinton, but McPeak isn't, but Ferraro was, but Wright isn't…..it's just arrant nonsense, really.
I don't really care what McPeak says, as long as I'm allowed to comment on its ludicrousness, and I don't care what Wright says or said, because as much as I don't like Obama, I don't believe for a second that he shares those views.
I wrote this piece because I am sick of hearing Hillary lambasted for things other people have said. It's ridiculous to imagine that she would have wanted Carville to say what he did—whatever you think of her, she's not a moron, and she and everyone else knew what was going to happen afterward.
Damozel,
Just to be clear. If Hillary becomes the candidate, I will be voting for her. Zero question of that.
And I agree that I just can't worked up by the comments of proxies. the ONLY thing that Clinton has really angered me about was her decision to praise McCain in order to impugn Obama. That is going well past the line.
I don't blame Clinton for Carville being stupid. But that doesn't mean I exonerate Carville for being stupid.
Damozel
“end of story”. That is convincing to nobody. It is a declaration.
Wright is a good example of how an issue does not stick to a candidate, when the candidate has no record of similar events, when the candidate seems better than her vitriolic supporters.
Hillary herself has burned many. many of the bridges she crossed.
The Clintons, have created the pugnacious atmosphere that is doing them in. Carville, for most people, is The Clintons: Blind Loyalty. End of story.
By the way, Obama is not my preferred candidate.
Obama should not have done business with Reszo (sp?), Michelle Obama has too much bitterness, Obama is a “roll of the dice”. I could go on and on. What Obama does not have is a 17 year record of attacking the messenger and excuse-making supporters who alternately express admiration for toughness with self-pitying “Poor Hillary” complaints.
The reason The Clintons do not get the benefit of the doubt was visible March 24, when her campaign cited “contemporary news accounts” to back up a story they knew was false.
And that same day, so did Hillary. She could not connect and say something so easy “The Armed Forces of our country made me so safe that day that I salute them. I was happy to go to Bosnia and thank them that day in person. Many of my 80 overseas trips were made more meaningful because I thanked all those whom we cannot than eneough. If I left the impression that I was in danger, what I meant to say was THEY are in danger and always did a great job protecting me. In fact, the Armed Forces would not have flown me into any place where there was a remote danger to me. I meant to say, THEY faced the danger before and after my visit and I am grateful to them.”
Hillary does not say things like that because her staff are idiots.
However, for you, Hillary is running for president as a victim, “end of story”,
For the sake of Taylor Marsh and Talk left and Hillary' more Americans should accept “end of story” assertions. It is not a good argument and Hillary needs to convince people, doesn't she?
I agree with this point 100% by Damozel:
I wrote this piece because I am sick of hearing Hillary lambasted for things other people have said. It's ridiculous to imagine that she would have wanted Carville to say what he did—whatever you think of her, she's not a moron, and she and everyone else knew what was going to happen afterward.
Let's get real people, if you had to answer for everything that someone you knew said, you would have perpetual indigestion.
I can appreciate people having different viwpoints, but citing Keith Oberman (a per Chriswww)?
Why don't we ask Limbaugh what he thinks, then.
A large part of the problem in what is (laughingly) called analysis and commentary is that it's all about promoting some TV personality or other, not the serious business of providing information. They even each have their own schtik. Tim Russett's 'tough questions' consist of an airheaded reading of every nasty thing said about the person being interviewed and asking him/her to account for it. So-and-so said you are a blackmailer/thief/liar, and how do you account for that? Those aren't tough questions; it's a gossip session with Rosie and the girls.
For cable news, it's just the entertainment business, and these personalities are just there to draw in the crowds, like circus barkers drew crowds into circus tents.
The tragedy is that people dont' realize thay're at a circus and may acutally cast their votes according to the alternate world these people create..
Woe to the politician who isn't popular with these circus barkers. Any of them would make theri own grandmother look bad if it was good for the career.
This has been the point that Obama supporters make. Obama can't be responsible for what Wright says or anyone else.
But when it comes to Hillary supporters saying something then the perception and the spin is that Hillary is a puppet master and she somehow manipulated them into saying something.
I have written before that this is a war of surrogates because Obama and Hillary are so very much alike in where they stand on the issues that the only way to define themselves in ways that makes the other look bad and not make themselves look bad in the process is to have others do it for you.
The winner is clearly Barak Obama for one simple reason.
He has done almost nothing in his political career for anyone to impugn. Case closed. As Fox news said about two weeks ago. The democrats are stuck with Obama. He is the candidate for november. They just havent finished screaming yet.
“I can appreciate people having different viwpoints, but citing Keith Oberman (a per Chriswww)?
Why don't we ask Limbaugh what he thinks, then.”
For the last 8 years, the MSM has blandly gone along with administrative lies and warmongering and parroted the GOP talking points. On the right, we have had Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter and others. The left had only Air America, struggling in and out of bankruptcy and with only a sliver of a following compared to TV networks.
Olbermann is the only liberal media superstar, and has such whopping big ratings that the network MSNBC and the advertisers have had to recognize liberals as an audience they want, and as customers they want. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Look at the majority of TV News advertising and it's obvious where the corporate influence of news works (on the Sunday morning gasbags this morning, US Airforce, big pharma, insurance companies and “clean coal”).
Now, a network owned by two huge GOP supporters–NBC (GE) and MSN (Microsoft)–are having to face the economic reality that an outspoken liberal news anchor/commentator is hugely popular and hence profitable.
Say what you like, but I think this is a very good thing. The media is finally realizing that it can't ignore those who oppose ignoring climate change, open-ended pre-emptive war and robbing the treasury to benefit the upper crust. Pandering to the right turns off a chunk of audience that MSNBC is picking up.
Now, if you care to point out any factual errors in Olbermann's show, go ahead. I've read a couple of his books and though he is often attacked, he has not been refuted (except in rare occasions that he has himself corrected on-air). Don't like his tone? Turn it off. But don't make the Hillary mistake of coming down on the one network that has seen the light and taken a good chunk of market share specifically because they are airing a viewpoint that resonates with many millions of Americans.
I quoted Olbermann not because I agree with him, but because I object to the idea in this thread that he is somehow reflexively Anti-Hillary. When he interviewed Bill Clinton a few months back about his charity work, you could see an almost embarrassing hero worship coming from Olbermann.
As he notes, his opinion about the HIllary's campaign has come from careful observation and not a desire to see the Clinton's destroyed.
in the immortal words of Emily Latella, “Oh. Never mind.”