An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Bill Kristol and His Fox Team See No Good, Hear No Good and Say No Good in and about Hillary’s Speech
Immediately after Hillary Clinton’s passionate speech praising, supporting, endorsing Barack Obama and urging her supporters to elect Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States, Bill Kristol and Brit Hume’s Fox “Election ’08″ panel declared that Hillary not once urged her supporters to vote for Barack Obama and that she did the absolute minimum to support Obama.
There are only two things possible. Either the Fox panel suddenly found itself transported to Druidia, without any audio-visual connection to Denver, or the panel was suddenly replaced in Denver by Mizaru, Kikazaru, Iwazaru, and Shizaru, and these characters, contrary to the proverb, did see evil, did hear evil, and subsequently did say evil.
20 Responses to “Bill Kristol and His Fox Team See No Good, Hear No Good and Say No Good in and about Hillary’s Speech”
Two possibilities. It's just GOP concern trolling. Or, as Andrew Sullivan suggests, Clinton is too damn selfish to do what's necessary.
Both are wrong.
I'm almost embarrassed for them – but not really. I hear someone from McCain's campaign said she didn't say Obama was experienced enough. Talk about grasping at straws!
The “Kristol Theory” holds up again… The poor bastard hasn't been right about anything since he founded “Project for a New American Century”.
Yeah, I heard Hillary didn't say Obama was the Messiah. I spot a wedge!
I still think that the three, some say four, proverbial monkeys have been brainwashed, or are braindead.
That's a new low, even for that crew!
a tip 'o the hat to anyone with a strong enough stomach to sit thru that panel.
C-SPAN, straight up for me tonight.
Riiiiiight. I suppose when Clinton said, “Barack Obama is my candidate, he must be our President,” it meant people should just think really good thoughts about Obama on Election Day.
Have to agree with Kristol for once, and Andrew Sullivan (who'd have thought to find agreement between those 2) the speech was minimalist as Sullivan wrote. Meanwhile Keith Olbermann was about to have an Obamagasm.
Lets face it and be honest, the media bias on this election is incredible and the right-wing bias of Fox is no better or no worse than the left-wing bias of Olbermann and most of NBC. Form your own opinions and don't be swayed by media hype from either the left-wing biased or the right-wing biased.
I didn't watch the speech, Leo. The items people have been quoting seem pretty strong in support of Obama. What more were you looking for?
Micrparsing, downplaying, it's all a process of negation when you don't have a leg to stand on. If she went farther, they'd say she went too far. Fair and Balanced my left foot. It's like the good old “New and Improved” advertising homonym.
All of the Hillaryites in the hall were screaming for Obama– what more do you want?
Ad hominem (which is self-disqualifying) goes nowhere. Her speech was lousy, wooden like Al Gore, lasted too long, was self-serving and pathetic. Distort the truth all you want, it's still the truth. Last night at the convention was almost a 100% waste, generating suspicious about tonight and everything else other than Obama's speech on Thursday. Is the convention and the party really all about him and the image he has crafted, the “packaging,” otherwise nothing but emptiness?
DLS- With all due respect- If you're not a Democrat– and we know you're not –you just don't get it. The speech didn't ring any bells for you for the same reason it didn't ring any with the FNC team—you don't really like Hillary OR Obama or what they stand for.
NBC has two liberal commentators/hosts, FOX News is ALL conservatives outside of their whipping boy Alan Colmes, and he only co-hosts a show. Remember how Dick Cheney's office said NBC's Meet the Press was their best venue for controlling the message?
FOX and NBC aren't even in the same league of bias.
“If you're not a Democrat– and we know you're not –you just don't get it”
The mantra instead of reality? True enough, it seems here.
All she had to do was show up and say _anything_ her fans wanted to hear (or Obama fans hoping to hear her say his name) and it's a “wonderful” speech.
However, those of who observed it dispassionately know it was a poor speech.
I've been ready to accept either her or Obama as president and have anticipated a Democratic president. That doesn't mean I am obliged to accept and laud whatever they do.
This has _nothing_ to do with dislike of the candidates, or Dems, or of evil FOX.
[sigh]
Just as we grown-ups saw her speech accurately, so we also liked Schweitzer, whose speech _truly_ rallied the crowd, something that should have been routine and building throughout the evening, which didn't happen.
http://www.forbes.com/prnewswire/feeds/prnewswi…
Chris- now that you mention it–I do remember when Chris Matthews got too close to Cheney's role in the Plame leak, Cheney had Mary Matalin call Tim Russert to complain. Suddenly, Matthews started covering the '08 election almost exclusively.
DLS- So your opinion of the speech is the only valid one, because you are the only grown-up???
DLS,
[sigh]
What was I looking for?
I was looking for her to give some reason to elect Obama other than him being a democrat and not Bush. Bush isn't running for a third term (despite partisan democratic hype) and Obama needs to be portrayed as standing for something other than a vague concept of “Change” not just against Bush.
Congressmen might win elections for being against someone or something, but the Chief Executive and Commander-In-Chief really needs to stand for something more concrete. Hilliary did nothing to help Obama to forge an image of being for something of this nature.