home

The Divisiveness Is Tearing The Party Apart! Isn't It? Hello?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:37:52 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Remember when the Media and Dem Party leaders were wringing their hands over how the Democratic primary battles were creating unbridgeable divides in the Party? Either the GOP is made a sterner stuff (a very distinct possibility) or the Media is demonstrating yet another double standard as they seem unconcerned about this, via HuffPo:

Romney was asked about the criticism, launched by McCain, that he has a timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

"I don't have one, never had," Romney said.

"[McCain] says you do," chimed a reporter.

"Well, he's lying," replied the former governor. . .

How can the GOP survive this vicious fighting? Will the Media take notice and wonder when the Party Elders are going to step in? Do not hold your breath.

< Will The Clinton Hate Help Obama In A General Election? | FISA: Hillary And Obama to Vote No on Cloture >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Divisiveness Is Tearing The Party Apart! Isn't It? Hello? | 58 comments (58 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Got me! I thought the title was (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by oldpro on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:14:35 PM EST
    about MY party...which I do think is being torn apart...perhaps irreparably for my remaining lifetime.

    As for the Rs...get real.  If McCain can hug George Bush after their Carolina moment, it's a cakewalk for them to mend fences.  Their dream candidate may in fact be our wounded nominee...a Clinton or a Kennedy-tarred black man.

    Great.

    Another Nonissue (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by john horse on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:34:36 PM EST
    Here is another nonissue that the Mainstream Media is foisting on us to divert our attention from the real issues.  Personally, if Obama is nominated I will vote for him.  If Clinton is nominated I will vote for her.  Whatever personal issues they may have is trumped by spectre of four more years of GOP mismanagement.

    I was just reading on one of these threads about (none / 0) (#1)
    by athyrio on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:44:55 PM EST
    some one that was worried about Missouri was going to go Obama in a big way...Now I cannot find the comment to respond to so I will make it here in hopes they can read it....
    Poll numbers out today from Missouri:
    Hillary Clinton 43%
    John Edwards 28%
    Barack Obama 24%
    Unsure 5%
    Source

    so if I were you I really wouldnt worry about Missouri and Barack taking it....

    Bounce (none / 0) (#12)
    by chrisvee on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:31:52 PM EST
    I do recall President Clinton saying that it takes two days to see the bounce, so would this poll be a little too early to see the SC effect?

    Parent
    Rovian tactics! (none / 0) (#2)
    by CathyinLa on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:49:10 PM EST
    Smearing and blasting Romney, oh my!

    Vicious (none / 0) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:29:52 PM EST
    liars, trechery, ....shrill no sorry, Republican men cannot be shrill.  

    Parent
    But they can cry (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:47:08 PM EST
    as Romney did, three times in a week.

    And that was okay with the media.  (And, apparently, with JJJr.)

    Parent

    BTD (none / 0) (#3)
    by jen on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:49:17 PM EST
    Excuse the o/t, but thought you would be interested.

    Over at TPM, I ran across this comment about the now infamous statement by Bill Clinton:

       

    I am outraged by this story. I saw the ORGINAL clip of the reporters question. He FIRST asked Bill whether Obama could win as a black candidate...then added the second part of the question. The media CUT the first part, then accused Bill of injecting `race' (with Jesse Jackson) into this response. These tactics are increasingly alarming to me and show that the media is not only deliberately trying to "spin" again Bill Clinton, they are stealing the election from the American people. People need to stand up to this -- it is WRONG!

    I am in the process of trying to verify if this is true or not. If so, I think it is really big news.

    --posted by mikepridmore @ CCN
    I'm eager to find out the actual question also (none / 0) (#9)
    by jawbone on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:29:11 PM EST
    Somehow, it didn't seem logical that Bill Clinton would answer any question that badly, and triply so for one so fraught with racial and politcal meaning.

    And we know the MCM* clipped context away from Hillary's comments about JFK, MLK, LBJ and the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights legislation in order to fan the flames of racial division within the Democratic Party.

    Can we trust any quote the MCMers, especially the Village subset, present? Particularly when they're on the warpath against one candidate.

    *MCM--Mainstream Corporate Media; MCMer--member of MCM

    Parent

    I was just reading in Salon letters (none / 0) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:30:32 PM EST
    and looking for link to real video.

    Someone posted that there as well...

    Parent

    Where in Salon? (none / 0) (#34)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:28:21 PM EST


    Parent
    So supposedly (none / 0) (#31)
    by andreww on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:18:20 PM EST
    the question was: Can Obama win as a Black Candidate?  If indeed this question was asked, was it in reference to the General?  Seems like Bill's response doesn't make a lot of sense to that question either.

    If the claim is correct - definitely reason for outrage

    Parent

    Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by RalphB on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:31:06 PM EST
    If the question was "Can Obama win as a Black candidate?" and they were talking about the primary, then it would be perfectly reasonable to point out that Jesse Jackson had done so twice.

    That also might make the start of Clinton's answer, "that's bait to", make a lot of sense.


    Parent

    Where did you find (none / 0) (#40)
    by jen on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:43:34 PM EST
    this info, about the first question? I'm posting at one of the several kos diaries slamming Clinton for his remark (I know I'm a fool) and want to link if I can.

    Thanks!

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#43)
    by RalphB on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:53:19 PM EST
    I don't know squat about the question.  I was responding to andreww's post where that question was posited.


    Parent
    Oh. Well I found (none / 0) (#44)
    by jen on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:00:30 PM EST
    where the person at the abc blog made the initial claim.

    Poster and time posted:
    D.Campbell | Jan 27, 2008 4:16:35 PM

    at this blog:
    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/bubba-obama-is.html

    Parent

    Not as good as a transcript, but ... (none / 0) (#57)
    by robrecht on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:16:52 PM EST
    ... the NYT relies on an account on MSNBC to report that the original question was merely about Kerry:

    "Mr. Clinton laughed and replied, "That's bait too." (He had just responded to a question about Senator John Kerry by saying he would not take the bait.)"  Link

    Here's the 'account' on MSNBC's website:

    John Kerry told National Journal that "being an ex-president does not give you license to abuse the truth."

    "Did you notice he didn't specify?" Clinton said when asked about the comment. "They never do. They hurl these charges, but nothing gets specified. I'm not taking the bait today. I did what I could to help Senator Kerry every time he needed me, and every time he asked me. He can support whomever he wants for whatever reason he wants. But there's nothing for me to respond to."

    Another reporter asked what it said about Obama that it "took two people to beat him." Clinton again passed. "That's' just bait, too. Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in '84 and '88. And he ran a good campaign. Senator Obama's run a good campaign here, he's run a good campaign everywhere." Link



    Parent
    Here's the transcript (none / 0) (#58)
    by robrecht on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:54:38 PM EST
    Link

    Parent
    I am worried (none / 0) (#4)
    by Kathy on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:51:21 PM EST
    About the media taking it.  They are slamming Bill Clinton again for speaking out.  What the heck?  Can someone tell me exactly what he did that was so out of bounds in the political arena?  And how insulting to Obama that he needs the mommies of the party to help take off some of the heat.  And then we find things like this Jesse Jackson video today that was clipped to make his remarks more easily interpreted as something volatile.  This is beyond crossing the line; this is hurting people.  You do not inject racial division into a state and get to leave unscathed.  Shame on all of them.

    And I am sorry.  I respect Ted Kennedy, I really do, but he does not get to pick the party's presidential candidate.

    Kathy, is there evidence that the video (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Teresa on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:06:07 PM EST
    was clipped? I wouldn't be surprised but I'll like to know that for sure. It would make me feel better about his answer.

    Parent
    It would make a lot more sense (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by robrecht on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:01:21 PM EST
    In the very short video, Clinton first responds to the question about it taking two to campaign against Obama by say, "That's just bait too" and then mentions JJJr.  So he may have responded to the first part of the question about whether Obama could win as a black man by refusing to answer a baiting question.  That would make a lot more sense.

    Parent
    Here's the short version of the video (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by robrecht on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:03:07 PM EST
    I'm referring to: Link

    Parent
    The "that's just bait, too" (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Teresa on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:12:55 PM EST
    does seem to show with no doubt that he was responding to at least the second question and the first was "bait" of some sort. I really think the Clinton campaign needs to speak up about this because the ABC news blog (Trapper) is on their third post about this. I'm sure it's all over the news.

    I wish we knew the first question. If I were campaigning for Hillary, I'd have someone taking a video of every word I said at this point.

    Parent

    that's what I read (none / 0) (#7)
    by Kathy on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:22:26 PM EST
    though, I suppose you could say trust what you read on blogs as much as what you see on television.

    Someone said this would be news.  I will not hold my breath.

    Parent

    Don't worry (none / 0) (#14)
    by athyrio on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:33:33 PM EST
    Bobby Kennedy's side of the family all are endorsing HRC...Guess they don't want Uncle Ted telling them who to like....lol

    Parent
    uh OH! (none / 0) (#19)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:54:02 PM EST
    trouble at the family pcinic this year!

    Parent
    Re: (none / 0) (#8)
    by Steve M on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:24:06 PM EST
    It is, of course, because black people are very fragile.  If the Clintons were attacking someone else you would never hear all this yakking.

    They don't care when it's about a (none / 0) (#15)
    by Teresa on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:36:24 PM EST
    women. Obama is in a win/win situation here.

    Parent
    Re: (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Steve M on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:47:36 PM EST
    To be clear, it's not about the person being attacked; it is about the people who will presumably be upset by the attack.  Somehow, black voters are the only ones thought to be temperamental enough that they might storm out of the party if someone lays a glove on their preferred candidate.

    The media is infantilizing black voters with this narrative, to be perfectly honest.

    Parent

    I knew that's what you meant. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Teresa on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:13:55 PM EST
    I believe that the media underestimates how angry they are making women with some of their antics.

    I am starting to believe, like BTD, that Obama can waltz through this because everyone is scared to question him on anything.


    Parent

    Dangerous cocktail (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:26:29 PM EST
    True believers, fear and "idealism".  

    Parent
    yeah (none / 0) (#28)
    by Kathy on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:10:39 PM EST
    and it's all the white media goobers who are accusing other white people of being racist.  Then, they find the film and edit it to fit their spin on the story.  Disgusting.

    Parent
    Fragile? (none / 0) (#24)
    by john horse on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:39:31 PM EST
    Steve M
    re:It is, of course, because black people are very fragile.

    (Sarcasm alert) Do you mean black people are fragile, just like children?  Oh wait, its women that are supposed to be fragile.  After all they are the weaker sex.  

    I think I smell a troll.

    Parent

    read his followup (none / 0) (#25)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:41:37 PM EST
    he was being sarcastic,

    Parent
    You Are Right (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by john horse on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:31:54 PM EST
    Oops.  You are right.  I was wrong.  Sorry Steve M.

    Parent
    Re: (none / 0) (#50)
    by Steve M on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:32:05 PM EST
    It's ok.  I'm not that fragile. :)

    Parent
    Well the media is playing an interesting game (none / 0) (#13)
    by americangoy on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:33:03 PM EST
    As a DLC democrat, one cannot complain, as we have two prominent candidates, whose race is already done and dusted, and they are ready for the coronation.

    In the media coverage right now, the republicans are an after thought.

    However, if you like Edwards, or (gosh forbid!) Dodd or Kucinich, they do not exist as candidates.  Never did.  That slightly narrows down the choices in my view for our democracy - as I for one do not want a crazy candidate to be the president - AGAIN.

    Anyhoo...

    I want to welcome myself to this blog.
    Another lurker, brief blogger, then refugee from DKos.

    welcome (none / 0) (#16)
    by athyrio on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:38:43 PM EST
    Americangoy...much more sanity here on this blog...:-)

    Parent
    Is your last paragraph the (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:05:48 PM EST
    the antithesis of a GBCW?

    Parent
    divisiveness (none / 0) (#20)
    by diogenes on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:01:20 PM EST
    McCain can attack Romney because if he is nominated then Romney supporters sure won't ever vote for Hillary.  When Billary tag-teams Obama, if Hillary is nominated then some dissgusted Obama supporters would vote for McCain (though not for a Huckabee or Romney).  

    As a democrat (none / 0) (#30)
    by NJDem on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:14:21 PM EST
    I will vote for the nominee, whoever that is.  But as a longtime Clinton loyalist, Clinton's need to mention Jesse Jackson did leave a bad taste in my mouth.  

    So if it turns out this was a media distortion (re: cutting the original question asked to BC), I think we should pass the truth around (even to the blogs we don't like to visit anymore) until there's a formal correction.  

    I think/fear BC's comments after the lose may have been the nail in the coffin for many people b/c of this race issue the media has created--it's even rumored that it's what turned Sen. Kennedy.  Most don't realized how biased the MSM/MCM has been regarding the Clinton's and the race issue, so this would be great proof.  

    Thoughts?

    I read that Kennedy informed Obama (none / 0) (#32)
    by Teresa on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:18:48 PM EST
    on Thursday but I agree with the rest of this. I just don't know how to get the video. It was an ABC reporter from what I understand and they are getting way too mileage from this to show the entire video. The Clintons need to insist IF they clipped the video to take the answer out of context.

    Parent
    Oops (none / 0) (#33)
    by NJDem on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:19:12 PM EST
    [re: #30] "after the 'loss'  Sorry :)

    looks like (none / 0) (#35)
    by Kathy on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:30:23 PM EST
    Hillaryis44.org and Taylor Marsh are looking into this.  Apparently, it was MSNBC.  If you look at the footage (sorry, no link) Bill Clinton says something about baiting him before answering the question.

    This seems plausible to me.  And folks are wondering why Clinton is not correcting it, but maybe he's trying to let it die down.  Also, who would believe him?  This same thing happened over the "Fairy Tale" debacle and no one believed him then until the damage was well and truly done.

    Wow, I wish we had our fang-toothed liberal usuals on this.  Can you imagine how Kos and HuffPo would be snarling if this had anything to do with yet another Bush cover-up?  No contest.  We would have had our answer hours ago.

    Tearing the party apart (none / 0) (#38)
    by RalphB on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:34:19 PM EST
    Republicans can take heat but the Democratic party seems to have a rather large "invertebrate" wing.
    This type of media whining (none / 0) (#39)
    by Tano on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:35:23 PM EST
    is so boring and ridiculous.

    If you have been paying attention, the fractious breakup of the Republican coalition has been an ongoing theme for the last six months at least.

    If there is video (none / 0) (#41)
    by NJDem on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:51:18 PM EST
    then there has to be a way to get the truth out.  There are reasonable people (yes, even at the other sites) who would help push it b/c it is just wrong-- to the former President, and more importantly to citizens who deserve intergrity in journalsim.  

    There should also be something on the HillHub or that 'truth page' she has.  It's still weird there's no word from the campaign?    

    Anyone else (none / 0) (#42)
    by NJDem on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 08:52:20 PM EST
    also curious if since the last debate the Obama camp has given HRC the explanation for the 50 billion in his plans that she claimed was not paid for?  Ironically this perfectly legitimate question is what started the whole Walmart/Rezko thing...

    BTD (none / 0) (#45)
    by athyrio on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:08:20 PM EST
    Is there anyway to get this information out about the statistics so far in the election as compiled over at Left Coaster...It is so important as the MSM is ignoring it....

    Ummm (none / 0) (#46)
    by andreww on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:20:05 PM EST
    Another way to read this data is that across all the candidates Obama's support has been the most consistent across all demographics with his widest swing being 5% points.  Both Hillary and Edwards have had more variance in their support between states.  The other important factor not included in here is that Women and Men are not being separated out.

    As will all data, it's in the eye of the beholder.

    Parent

    strike that....10 points. (none / 0) (#47)
    by andreww on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:22:06 PM EST
    I misread a line.

    Still the smallest variance of all candidates however.  

    Parent

    and yet another way (none / 0) (#48)
    by Kathy on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:23:43 PM EST
    to read the data is that Obama has a threshold of support that has not been breached in any primary or caucus.

    I go by the magic 33%.  Nationally, that seems to be his cap.  Good news in a race against three people...not so good when it's him and one person.

    Parent

    among whites? (none / 0) (#54)
    by andreww on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:39:58 PM EST
    is that the ceiling you're talking about?  If so - many of those white women would swing to Obama in a general - so shouldn't be an issue.  

    Parent
    Apples and oranges -- (none / 0) (#56)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:35:25 AM EST
    this thread and data are about primary season.

    Parent
    I think this data is important to show..... (none / 0) (#49)
    by athyrio on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:30:55 PM EST
    good charts!!! noone else did it before that I saw, however, I think that Florida will be interesting since the election is coming up on Tuesday...Demographics should be interesting...

    Parent
    Breaking News (none / 0) (#51)
    by athyrio on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:34:17 PM EST
    Hillary will be in the senate tomorrow to vote no on the FISA bill.....

    excellent. they all should be. (none / 0) (#52)
    by andreww on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:37:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Awesome (none / 0) (#53)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 09:39:55 PM EST
    takes away from the Kennedy endorsement

    Parent
    The Divisiveness Is Tearing The Party Apart! Isn't It? Hello? | 58 comments (58 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment