home

Boehlert's Revenge: Politico Asks Why Weren't You Whining When Clinton Got The Treatment?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:31:12 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Politico writes:

Nothing but petty, process-oriented questions, asked in a prosecutorial tone, about the Democratic front-runner’s personal associations and his electability. Where was the substance? Where was the balance?

Where indeed. Hillary Rodham Clinton and her aides have been complaining for months about imbalance in news coverage. For the most part, the reaction to her from the political-media commentariat has been: Stop whining.

That’s still a good response now that it is Obama partisans — some of whom are showing up in distressingly inappropriate places [They are referencing the Obama News Network, NBC] — who are doing the whining.

Boehlert's Revenge:

What’s happening online now is potentially dangerous: HRC has gotten dreadful press, not fair, “gotcha,” and so on — there’s a portion of the blogosphere that has ignored that and there’s a portion that has encouraged that.

It’s dangerous because the media criticism has to be consistent and relentless, and we can’t very well say, “You can’t go after our candidates … except this one.” I get nervous about pushback regarding disingenuous coverage - our response needs to be, “You can’t treat Democrats this way.” When people in the left blogosphere are quoting an anonymous Matt Drudge source, it makes me nervous.

< Alan Abramowitz's Red Herring Reply To Paul Krugman | Bad News For Hillary: Zogby Has Clinton PA Lead Growing >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Boehlert's Revenge: Politico Asks Why Weren't You Whining When Clinton Got The Treatment? | 100 comments (100 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    KO defended NBC's attacks on Clinton in (5.00 / 11) (#1)
    by Teresa on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:37:57 AM EST
    their debate because, at the time, she was the front runner.

    Um, Keith? Does this not apply now that Obama is the front runner? I accidentally watched about fifteen minutes of his show last night. I think George S. is his new Bill O.

    Heh (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:39:02 AM EST
    The Obama News Network.

    Parent
    I prefer ... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:35:12 PM EST
    MSNBarack

    Parent
    His network was by far the worst (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:39:35 AM EST
    has he forgotten that Brian Williams started the other Philadelphia debate by asking Obama to attack Hillary?

    Parent
    Forgotten? (5.00 / 10) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:41:24 AM EST
    Of course not. Olbermann is simply a disgrace.

    He is Obama's O'Reilly. Hey, there's a new nickname for him.

    Parent

    Hey, he's a double O (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:46:47 AM EST


    Parent
    You misspelled 'Obamann' (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:59:39 AM EST
    The way to tell him apart from his sputtering doppelganger is that Bill O'Really?!? is unintentionally hilarious while Keith Obamann is laboriously unfunny directly proportionate to how hard he tries.

    Their battle is organically elegant and performs a valuable public service in that they effectively cancel each other out, saving millions the dreary chore of having to take them down individually.

    Parent

    The Story Of This Campaign (5.00 / 8) (#31)
    by flashman on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:23:57 AM EST
    is the death of journalistic integrity.  Journalists advocating instead of reporting was once the providence of right-wing talk radio.  Now, they are all Limbaugh mini-me's.

    And Olberman is leading the race to the bottom.

    Parent

    The Soft Bigotry of Low Scrutiny (5.00 / 8) (#45)
    by Athena on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:45:00 AM EST
    Yes, that's exactly the phenomenon: upper middle class white men in a state of paralysis and stupor when challenged to cover the first African-American candidate who may get a nomination.  Add in the rapturous element that Obama has elicited (e.g., tingles), in particular from particular pundits.

    It all adds up to creating the establishment-sanctioned low information environment that Obama has been launched in.

    But I think that a sort of inverse racism is at work and manifested in a soft bigotry of low scrutiny.

    Parent

    AND (4.75 / 4) (#58)
    by sas on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:10:56 AM EST
    I might point out, the sexism misogyny of the upper middle class men, who absolutely swoon over Obama, while running from a Hillary candidacy with their tails between their legs.

    A strong woman scares the hell out of them.

    Parent

    Not just this campaign (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:29:05 PM EST
    Remember the press about Gore? Or about the Clinton's when WJC was in the White House? Or how they tried to make Carter look like an idiot from day one? The "elite" journalists haven't done their job in decades. It's just gotten so bad we can all see it now. Well we can if we take our heads out of our posteriors and are honest about it.

    Parent
    journalistic integrity just died? (none / 0) (#63)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:22:27 AM EST
    who knew?

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:24:36 AM EST
    We haven't had real "news media" in years.  Just advocacy.

    Parent
    I Understand Your Sentiment (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by flashman on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:04:37 PM EST
    there was, however, a segment who, after 2004, began to challenge the faux news, AM radio, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield monopoly of what gets reported.  This smal segment was my personal staple of news and information.

    That segment is creating value no more.

    Parent

    I advocated for the Fairness Doctrine last month (none / 0) (#96)
    by dotcommodity on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:07:41 PM EST
    at DK and was roundly dismissed for wanting "the government telling me what to think"

    (Changing their tune now...quite a wakeup call for these Independant and Republican political newcomers)

    Parent

    Obama's "secret" weapon? (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:38:27 AM EST
    only if you haven't been reading BTD. heh.

    Indeed (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:39:26 AM EST
    Secret to whom?

    Parent
    My favorite portion of the Politico article (5.00 / 10) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:40:38 AM EST
    If Obama was covered like Clinton is, one feels certain the media focus would not have been on the questions, but on a candidate performance that at times seemed tinny, impatient and uncertain.

    The difference seems clear: Many journalists are not merely observers but participants in the Obama phenomenon.

    In my opinion this is another problem because the Republicans will dice him and fry him and he has no experience in dealing with it effectively due to the press coddling he has received thusfar.  Brushing the dirt off of your shoulders isn't going to cut it in the GE.

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:42:03 AM EST
    The Media will continue to coddle him. That is why he is more electable.

    Parent
    I think that's very much an open question (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:45:08 AM EST
    and I'm suspicious that it will be sufficient, even if true. But that's a topic for another thread.

    Parent
    BTD, I really think that you are wrong (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:49:27 AM EST
    that the media will continue to coddle him.  I suppose the only way to find this out is to wait and see, but I honestly think that Clinton will snag the nomination, so, basically, you will just have to take my word for it.

    As evidence, I offer this: when us Clinton folks complained about Shuster et al, the bashing seemed to get worse.  The media circles their wagons when one of their own is attacked.  No one can do anything about KO, but I think the mainstream press is going to start inching up on the attacks, especially when Clinton's big PA win changes the narrative.

    There have been some cracks of late in the media where folks are breaking ranks already.  They are just waiting for a reason to pounce on Obama, and a big PA Clinton win will be reason enough.  It can all trace back to his "cling" remarks, so painting them as racist won't fly.

    Parent

    Ratings and story (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:13:04 AM EST
    They are enamored with the idea of the first black president.  Sorry but it's true.  I think the way they see it, they will have more fun, more stories, more ratings with an Obama presidency.  I don't think they care who wins, they care about ratings.  They interpret the "movement" to mean news ratings.  Whereas Hillary and McCain, don't bring a new demographic into the picture.  

    Parent
    The media wants what it wants (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:25:14 AM EST
    They want Obama.  I don't think it makes much difference to big business which party is in power anymore.  Govt moves slowly, a lot of the power in govt in not with the elected officials, those in office won't just worry about their constituencies not electing them, they will have media after them if they don't endorse Obama.

    The media has been able to focus on the Pope instead of Obama's weak debate performance and is again saying it doesn't matter if Clinton doesn't win Penn, still reporting only polls in Obama's favor and that superdeez will not let this go until convention.  They will continue to find something to cover besides Obama.

    How do you see Clinton getting the nom at this point?  I might want it, I just can't see it happening barring imploding and if the media says he hasn't imploded, will he ever implode???

    Parent

    The only reason (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by pie on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:02:42 AM EST
    that the MSM will have to be careful is because of the cries of racism. But they'll definitely find other ways to torpedo him.  He'll be known by the company he's kept, if nothing else. McCain is the one who can do no wrong.  

    Where's Vicki Iseman? Whatever happened with the campagn finance issue?

    Parent

    Obama innoculated MSM against racism charges (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:53:57 AM EST
    He and TeamObama have so abused that charge, egregious race-baiting and racism will form the heart of the Rethuggernaut attack against him.

    In short order, Obama himself has declared  his own mother and grandmother to be racists. These are the two women who, respectively, gave him life and raised him.

    Rather than using her appearance on Larry King Live to dispel the gratuitous charge -- which would have been the classy thing to do -- Michelle Obama instead opportunistically megaphoned the smear of racism at Sen. Clinton and fmr. President Clinton. The charges against his character are easily recognized as the same ones the usual suspects hurl at black men who achieve power or simply threaten them in other avenues.

    Bad move going for the short term advantage of sliming HRC AKA The Clintons with this. One of the main reasons, albeit simmering below the surface, the Beltway Boobs and Banana Republicans hated the Clintons was that they were in tight with African Americans.

    Obama's already written the narrative for his future attackers, who by now anyone should see coming like those slow-moving monsters in B-movie sci-fi.

    Obama's "story" as will be played up starting one nanosecond after TeamObama finishes cluster-bombing the environment with weaponry that he will have to tip-toe through without blowing himself up will already be rife with racist smears the Repugs have been using since Smirk and Rove first cut their teeth on them in '72.

    And Obama's cries of racism? His former BFFs will just point out that Obama called any white person close to him a racist and any black person that didn't do his bidding an Uncle Tom. That includes people who raised him, worked to send him to fancy schmancy schools and give him every advantage most people don't get. Those people, he'll slime. Meanwhile, he'll firmly stand by angry black people who hate America and blah blah blah blah blah ...

    The media will just "dutifully" report that, cause they'll all of a sudden just do their job, which is to sit back and watch the usual CREEPS leap into action. And that's the "neutral" media.

    For the hard right wing Wurlitzer, the Cold Civil War they've been holding, well, my entire lifetime will bust wide open and, Glory Hallelou, they can dump the code that's had them going after a favorite enemy through gritted teeth all this time.

    (Jeralyn and BTD, understand that I'm neither race-baiting here nor claiming that Obama is "unelectable" -- unquantifiable fluff I don't ascribe to -- but noting a less-covered aspect of what's been so dangerous about the habitual cluster-bombing TeamObama and his supporters have been indulging in.)

    Meanwhile, what have they got to hurl against "divisive" HRC that we haven't heard from them AND Obama? That both factions hate her, ergo, she's evil? People apart from his (IMO) soft new support didn't buy it without Obama and they won't buy it with him, either.

    Parent

    They're coddling him (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by kmblue on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:27:56 AM EST
    because (it's only one reason) they fear the "racist" tag.
    They don't fear the "sexist" tag.
    If Obama gets the nom, and it's free BarBQ vs.
    Hope and Change, God only knows what will happen!

    Parent
    Very True (none / 0) (#46)
    by Virginian on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:46:03 AM EST
    Racists get fired

    Sexists get "a talking too" and a 4 hour sensitivity training DVD to watch over the weekend

    Parent

    Another wild card (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by kmblue on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:19:59 PM EST
    is a delusion some journalists still cling to that they are "the voice of the people".
    Look at Timmeh with his "I'm from Buffalo!" routine.
    He probably couldn't find it on a map.
    IMHO that's the only reason Obama took a little heat for his SF remarks.
    Journalists are like anybody else, they want to be liked, and they want to be cool.
    Advantage: Obama

    Parent
    continue to coddle him? (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:25:03 AM EST
    did you miss the implications of the last debate?

    Did you think that without a Clinton to dump on, that Obama wouldn't be the only Democrat left to dump on?

    Come on BTD...surely you see the handwriting on the wall now.

    Parent

    I agree that the media with attempt to coddle (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:44:11 AM EST
    him but we both know which party big business favors and the media is big business so I don't think the coddling rule will hold.

    Parent
    That's orobably true... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Exeter on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:38:21 AM EST
    ...but the difference in the general would be that they won't be filleting Obama's opponent for him daily like they are now. In an Obama-McCain campaign it will be all about how lucky we are to have to great candidates, how its the best presidential campaign in history, blah, blah, blah, blah... the media loves McCain more than Obama and they will never go after him.

    So, that is a positive for Obama, but I don't think it makes him more electable than Clinton -- he still will not have the media doing his dirty work for him and the GOP will still negatively define Obama before he can define himself.

    Parent

    Tough call BTD. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Radix on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:09:24 AM EST
    I believe you are correct about MSNBC. Fox, on the other hand, wont be so forgiving, which leaves us CNN. CNN will probably split the difference between the two.  

    Parent
    Don't people get it? (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by pie on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:56:29 AM EST
    and we can't very well say, "You can't go after our candidates ... except this one."

    Anyone with a brain should understand this.  I suppose those who have been really marginalized in the past, the far-left, have now gotten a voice thanks to the internet, and they're certainly using it.  But they've turned off a fair number of democrats who don't agree with their tactics or refusal to compromise.  The MSM must be having a really good chuckle over the select outrage.

    I guess we'll get through this.  I hope it'll happen in time for November.

    The latest MoveOn/Hillary is another example of the "Shoot first; ask questions later" approach.  It endorsed Obama, for crying out loud.  Although Hillary's comments might have come earlier, it was apparent what the caucus-goers were doing. They were talking about it on the blogs!  They were no fans of hers because of her AUMF vote, claiming that Obama would never have done so if he'd been in the Senate.  Sorry, that's not believable.  They also contend that Obama will change Washington politics.  That's really funny.  But their bashing of her and Bill, a democratic president, have really lost me.  He wasn't perfect, but they're hardly behaving like democrats.

    That audio tape (none / 0) (#18)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:00:48 AM EST
    should be examined, how did it appear?  Bet there is some funny business.

    Parent
    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:03:22 AM EST
    You think blasting Move On will hurt Clinton? I think it will help her.

    Would not surprise me is the Clinton campaign leaked it.

    Parent

    I agree... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:09:55 AM EST
    but listen to the quality of the tape...there is something funny about it.  

    Cannot stand Move-on.

    Parent

    I was thinking that too (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:10:23 AM EST
    The "creative class" is really pretty stupid about PA Democrats if they think this will matter on Tuesday.

    Parent
    And I must say (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:11:15 AM EST
    their apparent inability to recognize problems with MoveOn is just characteristic for them.

    Parent
    Rabid Lambs (none / 0) (#34)
    by Lahdee on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:27:43 AM EST
    Is it a full moon?

    Parent
    I think it will help too (none / 0) (#39)
    by Dave B on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:32:45 AM EST
    I joined moveon back in the 90's.  It has morphed into something different since then.  But I stayed a member all these years.  Recently I have been trying to get off their mailing list.  It's difficult.  They want to keep claiming me as a member regardless of my attempts to disassociate myself from them.

    The last years, their tactics have hurt the Democratic cause, not helped.  Whenever there is a key issue in the news, moveon does something stupid that changes the subject from issues to those "radicals at moveon."

    I'm happy that Clinton took a shot at them.  And I believe it's true they took over the caucuses.  That's the problem with caucus.  A small group can overwhelm the system.  That's not small d democratic.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#40)
    by blogtopus on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:33:31 AM EST
    I just heard the tape, and it is of such bad quality that nobody would be able to make much hay of it except for the extremists.

    Just got back from Puffhost, and the comments board is hilariously foaming about this.

    If Obama wants to approach PA folks with "Hillary hates MoveOn!" with a straight face, then so be it. That will be the final nail in the coffin for Obama's hopes to appeal to the working man.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#68)
    by kempis on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:31:46 AM EST
    MoveOn jumped the shark a while ago with its Betrayus ad. Right or wrong, most people were offended by a bunch of liberals attacking a general.  It was a stupid, Jane Fonda-esque move on MoveOn's part.

    Hillary giving MoveOn the metaphoric finger plays well in Middle America--and frankly there are more people in that demographic than there are on Kos. Ask Ned Lamont.

    Parent

    Audio tape? (none / 0) (#27)
    by blogtopus on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:13:54 AM EST
    What are you referencing? Maybe I'm clueless but I haven't heard anything about the latest MoveOn / Hillary interaction.

    Parent
    Audio tape (none / 0) (#30)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:21:32 AM EST
    has surfaced where Hillary bashes Move-on and activists, you would have to find the link at Huff or TPM

    Parent
    Ok, I'm going in! (5.00 / 8) (#33)
    by blogtopus on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:27:03 AM EST
    Give my love to family and friends.

    Thanks S!

    Parent

    Coddling (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Lahdee on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:57:58 AM EST
    The response was itself a warning about a huge challenge for reporters in the 2008 cycle: preserving professional detachment in a race that will likely feature two nominees, Obama and John McCain, who so far have been beneficiaries of media cheerleading.
    Two media darlings. I'll bet the corporations back the "maverick" cause he gives good barbeque. And, he's got Joe, the bipartisan's bipartisan.

    The media treat politics like sports (5.00 / 7) (#37)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:30:51 AM EST
    (see KO), and have to make a "game" out of the Clinton-Obama contest, and in this case, they have chosen Obama's as the bandwagon they want to be on.  All that has been missing so far is Keith and Chris and Timmy showing up for their respective shows in glittery hot pants and halter tops, waving Go! Big O! pom-poms.

    But the general election is a new game, and they will be on the McCain bandwagon - regardless of whether the Democratic nominee is Clinton or Obama.

    In my opinion, Obama has to have the media on his side in order to win, but Clinton does not - and given that Obama cannot guarantee that the media will help him as the Democratic nominee, I will stick with Clinton as being more electable.

    I see (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by Serene1 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:38:11 AM EST
    the MSM's treatment of Obama similar to their treatment of Bush in the post 9/11 days. I remember after 9/11 every speech of Bush was hailed as some historic speech by the media, Bush was given a free pass on everything. The brave MSM including the nytimes and wapo were too scared to question Bush's rationale for attacking Iraq.

    I see a similar behaviour by the MSM now regarding Obama. They seem to be really carried away by Obama. The way they went overboard praising Obama's speech, the way they refuse to question him on anything, the way they refuse to acknowledge his various weakness.... etc. does not bode well.

    My only fear at this point is can America afford another Bush prototype. At a time when America actually needs an experienced and qualified Democratic hand at the helm, Democrats seem to be more content in selecting an American Idol.

    I also am (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Serene1 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:53:42 AM EST
    kind of uncomfortable with the purity 'family values" streak being touted by Obama and co. Michelle went on Colbert and stresses "family values" as one of Obama's USP. Now we all know what they were trying to imply regarding the "family values" thing. Also their excessive preaching about God. Obama during the initial days distributed a mailer stressing his religious roots.

    Now I always thought Democrats were more relaxed about religon and "family Values" so where is this coming from. Is this still the party of Kennedy, Charlie Wilson, patterson and yes Bill Clinton or is this party now being changed into some kind of holier than thou party.

    Family Values (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Buckeye on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:59:59 AM EST
    That is going to be a hard sell for BO.  If Barack and Michelle try to push their "family values," they are also going to have to explain taking their kids to Reverend Wright's sermons.  Not a good strategy.

    Parent
    Some Of The So Called Positive Media Obama Is (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:14:30 AM EST
    getting will indeed help him in the primary but the narratives may do real damage to him in demographics he needs to win the general.

    From what I read yesterday, Rachel Maddox said on air that Obama supporters would take to the streets with torches and pitchforks if he doesn't win the nomination. Now that statement might help intimidate  the SDs into giving him the nomination but what average Joe or Jane really wants a president whose supporters will riot in the streets if he doesn't get his way. Also, what theme the Republicans are promoting does this statement reinforce? That Obama is part of the extreme radical militant left that hates and is a threat to America.

    How many times has it been mentioned that on air that Obama's support comes from the highly educated affluent part of the Democratic party and that Clinton supporters are uneducated, low information voters. What the theme the Republicans are promoting do this statements reinforce? That Obama and his supporters are elitists who looks down on average  working people.

    White working class people are currently one of Obama's biggest problems in securing the presidency and the talking points put forth by some of his supporters in the media may do more harm than good in the general election.

     

    I love it when (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:10:39 PM EST
    upper class, white, media elites and latte dems portend the rioting of aa's in the streets should Obama not win the nomination.  They risk nothing from this sort of inflammatory rhetoric, huddled in their white enclaves as they are.

    The imaginary threat of violence is insulting to aa's and insulting to every free-thinking person.  These predictions only push negative stereotypes and incite anger.  AAs can certainly express displeasure without turning to violence.  

    Parent

    Bob Herbert's Column... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by santarita on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:21:56 AM EST
    In the NY Times is worth a read.  He's looking for Obama to start adding a little more substance to his message.  The problem is that the more substance he adds, the more likely it is that he will not be able to please some group of voters.  A vague message allows people to think that he is actually saying what they want to hear.

    I thought it was a poor column (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:25:37 AM EST


    Parent
    Not his first poor column (none / 0) (#81)
    by ajain on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:28:39 PM EST


    Parent
    If nothing else (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:23:04 AM EST
    The media has helped me learn how to spell the word "misogyny".  Did I get it right this time?

    Miss-Ob-Gyn-y (none / 0) (#74)
    by Fabian on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:00:16 PM EST
    Drop one "s" and the "b".

    That's how I remember, anyway.

    Parent

    THE MSM DOESN'T LOVE OBAMA (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by tdraicer on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:38:33 AM EST
    >I disagreeby Big Tent Democrat
    >The Media will continue to coddle him. That is why he is more electable.

    A belief with absolutely no justification. One can only assume that BTD was on Mars the last 30 years and is unaware of how the MSM treats ALL Democrats vs. Republicans, and also how McCain is their first love.

    The MSM support for Obama has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with their dislike of the Clintons. They've been using him to get Hillary, and as soon as that is accomplished, they are going to go back to their real love, McCain. The ABC debate was a crystal clear warning that that is the case.

    I mean frankly, the evidence is so overwhelming that BTD's stand has become ridiculous-I can only assume that he is simply unwilling to admit a mistake.

    And how is (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Serene1 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:48:30 AM EST
    Clinton running a Republican campaign. Is it because of the following:
    1. Constantly diss the Democratic Clinton years as bad and praise the Regan Republican years as Good.
    2. Send surrogates to push reporters into covering Bill's extra marital affairs post WH.
    3. Compare a certain Democrat's Healthplan thru a republican viewpoint (harry louis ads).
    4. Have the campaign manager go out at regular intervals and say about your opponent - she will say whatever to win, she is a liar yada yada.
    5. Constantly highlight her dislikeability factor.
    6. Twist innocuous innocent sentences into racist remarks.
    7. Believe Drudge report over the Democratic opponent.

    And so on and on.  

    BTD---there's another twist in your coddle theory (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by lookoverthere on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:30:35 PM EST
    Obamanation piranha-swarmed ABC. Mediafolk do not like to get bit in the @ss.

    This morning on TIM RUSSERT, Chuck Todd referred to the response of Obamanation (yep, he used the term) to ABC and how this behavior could lead to the destruction of the Dem Party.

    I should've written down the quote.

    Regardless, Sen. Obama's followers bit their candidate's greatest ally. Allies don't like to get bit.

    I was wondering (none / 0) (#85)
    by eleanora on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:45:35 PM EST
    how that would play with the media. They really don't like any of their circle being attacked, especially if there's some truth in the complaint. Remember the fallout over Clinton going after Shuster's "pimping out" her daughter comment? The Sunday shows might be interesting to watch.

    Parent
    I have watched all 21 debates (1.00 / 1) (#69)
    by indy33 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:37:15 AM EST
    and the ABC debate was by far the most unfair and sensationalized of them all period. You keep saying that Clinton was treated worse and thats a joke. Give me specifics where Clinton was attacked on personal relationships, her pastor, her patriotism, her religion, anything that wasnt policy driven in the previous debates.I will say that some of them were clearly tougher on her than they were Obama but they centered around POLICY. Not personal issues! Tax returns are traditionally a issue. Questions about Bosnia are because they came from HER mouth. The questions about the bitter statements are fair game too, but not the flag pin, religion, and Ayers crap. He sat on a CHARITY board with him. He held a fundraiser for him, oooooh scary!!!!!!, and his quote was taken out of context. There is no comparison in these kinds of treatment. There were also many prominent people who attacked Obama for not defending moveon.org in the Betrayus days! He explained that he would not justify the non-issue by even voting but lots of people said he should have stood up for moveon.org. Now its okay to attack them on baseless charges. Howard Wolfson said that moveon.org intimidated voters in Nevada and Texas. They had not endorsed Obama before Nevada and the comments were BEFORE Texas. Moveon has been an important part of promoting progressive ideas for years since the CLINTON impeachment and to attack them and blame them for losing is pathetic. What will it take for people to see that she is running a REPUBLICAN campaign. I wont go as far as call her one but she is doing a hell of an impression.

    Sure (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:42:44 AM EST
    And Keith Olbermann plays it down the middle.

    What a ridiculous comment.

    Parent

    Give me his specific questions? (none / 0) (#73)
    by indy33 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:50:53 AM EST
    I completley agree that Obama is Keiths favorite and it is questionable to have him moderate but give me the direct questions that were as sensationalized as Obamas. I think this was awful and unfair for both Hillary and Obama. The difference I saw was Hillary jumping in head first and Obama questioning the importance of the questions, even Bosnia!

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:03:31 PM EST
    you missed the October 2007 Debate where Obama jumped in head first" on the trivial character attacks on Clinton?

    Look, go sell this somewhere else. I have been on this story from the beginning.

    I will be charitable and assume you simply a re unaware of what has transpired this year.

    Parent

    All POLICY! (none / 0) (#79)
    by indy33 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:20:51 PM EST
    Where does he attack her on persoal issues again. He has been consistent with his attacks on what he disagrees with her on. Iraq(voted w/ reps), torure(for it before against it), we all know the nafta stuff. I am still trying to find anything like what happened on ABC. Asking Obama if Wright loves this country as much as he does, or asking a question fed by Hannity is not what I would expect from Stephanopolous and no moderators have stooped that low period! The fact he worked for the Clintons is as much or more of a bias then KO just liking Obama in my book. In fact it was Edwards in that Debate who came on very strong against both Clinton and Obama, but i guess I havent been all over it like you.

    Parent
    You will (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:24:35 PM EST
    "say and do anything" to prop up Obama.

    Do you get it yet?

    Honestly, you are really deep into it aren't you?

    St. Barack Obama!

    I have no patience for your type. Please move on, preferably to another web site.

    Parent

    This is how you debate? (none / 0) (#86)
    by indy33 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:58:26 PM EST
    You have been consistent in your statements that Clinton has been treated less fair in these debates. I agree, but my contention is that the treatment in this debate was way over the top from any others and if you listen closely you will hear that I am not excluding Clinton from my defense. Although she fully elaborated on all the oppo research she had. The other debates focused on policy yet with a clear bias against Clinton. It was still always about policy. Kyl/Lieberman, Drivers Lisence for illegals, Iraq authorization, Bankruptcy bill. Yes the other canidates piled on but they focused on their differences from her on the policy itself. I am always respectful and I think that I can add some sensible counter-arguments to you BTD. You always talk about how Obamas people have to reach out to Clinton people  but you forget to talk about how utterly insulting and condescending  some Hillary statements ad supporters have been. We are to naive and young to know whats right for us. We think Obama is our "savior" which if I were a religous person would deeply offend me. Before Obama was on anyones radar, I supported him and I saw him as a real break from what we have had in recent years. I didnt need the media to tell me that. What the media was saying was Hillary is inevitable and why support anyone else? I knew I couldnt support Hillary as strongly as I once did because of her vote on Iraq and stance on enhanced interrogation. You seem to think that you have us Obama supporters all figured out BTD, but we are going to continue to suprise you and everyone!    

    Parent
    I do not debate (none / 0) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:09:43 PM EST
    people who I find unable to deal rationally with the truth.

    Sorry.

    Just move on.

    Parent

    Medvedev! (none / 0) (#95)
    by kayla on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:57:46 PM EST
    Focused on policy?  I saw it more as focused on statements made by Hillary Clinton about policy that the moderators wanted to deem untruthful.  Questions like - "So... Sen. Clinton one of your supporters said that you said A, but we found an audio recording from '94 where you said the exact opposite.  Many of your opponents say that most of the American people think that you are a liar.  Senator Obama - your response?"

    Not only have they asked Hillary embarrassing, tough gotcha questions, they also asked Obama soft ball questions like - "Sen. Obama many emails have been circulating saying that you are a Muslim.  Are you?"  Or simply - "Sen. Obama?" right after Hillary finished responding to the question.

    I think the substantive questions in the second half of the ABC debate were better than any questions asked in any other debate.  The first half was indeed a mess and I wish it were more like the second half.

    I can't believe I wrote this post.  It's pointless.  But I might as well post it, since I wasted a good 3 minutes typing it.

    Parent

    Obamabots Anonymous D.C.'s 12-step program (none / 0) (#11)
    by JoeCHI on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:46:34 AM EST
    One must not question "The Precious"!  What sacrilege!  

    Olbermann, Klein, Matthews, Alter, Wolfe, Robinson, Sullivan and the rest of those jokes should step away from the Kool-AId and quickly get themselves to the nearest Obamabots-Anonymous meeting!  

    My guess is that D.C. will be home to the largest O.A. membership, outside of 30 Rock, that is.

    OT: Kos logic from Maher (none / 0) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:59:49 AM EST
    Paraphrase:  Hillary called Obama elitist and she said middle Americas are hopeful and optimistic.  

    My question:  Are we not supposed to be hopeful and optimistic?  or is that reserved for the creative class?   There is some mighty twisting over their heads going on.  I wish someone could find the clip of him saying that.   It was so frigin elitist: like the looking down kind.  

    No, Democrats are miserable (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:30:11 AM EST
    Democrats are stereotyped as unhappy with their lot in life and always looking for a govt handout, never happy with what we get, we hate our country.

    I always found the Obama campaign to be the stereotypical doom and gloom campaign.  When Mrs Obama said something about our 'broken souls' I cringed.  My soul is fine, I just think health care is a human right.  Frankly, my anger at this primary isn't the candidates, it's the shoving aside of health care.

    Parent

    Oh look (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Dave B on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:34:36 AM EST
    It's the Angry Democrat.

    I can see the GE now.  Democrats are angry and nasty.  The sad fact is, regarding the Obama supporters, this will be the truth!

    Parent

    And my discomfort with Obama, (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:46:38 AM EST
    in part, anyway, comes from this ooky feeling that they are using the doom and gloom as a way to bring us all to worship at the feet of this quasi-religious figure - Obama - who is The Only One who can bring us all to some sort of Promised Land.

    And I suppose that one of the differences I see between Clinton and Obama is that her message is that we should believe in ourselves, and his is that we should believe in him.  Obama would argue otherwise, I know - but when he preaches - and yes, he does preach - about unity and coming together, he's really talking about unifying and coming together around him.

    It just gives me the creeps.

    Parent

    Waiting (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Athena on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:50:38 AM EST
    Are you not possessed of a broken soul waiting to be healed by The One?

    Parent
    I have been reluctant (none / 0) (#20)
    by DaytonDem on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:02:51 AM EST
    to come around to BTD's theory that Obama will continue to get velvet gloves treatment from most of the press if he wins the nomination, however this debate incident seems to show many in the media will carry water for him even without a Clinton to hate. Sigh...ok count me a tepid supporter.

    Sorry. (5.00 / 10) (#22)
    by pie on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:09:12 AM EST
    The media treatment of Obama reminds me of a cat who playfully knocks a mouse around just before he eats it.

    The dynamic will definitely shift once he becomes the nominee, if he becomes the nominee.  They'll definitey be tougher on the democrat.

    Parent

    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by blogtopus on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:15:52 AM EST
    You are so right. Perfect analogy.

    Parent
    Democrats losing a great story (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:34:08 AM EST
    I keep forcing my logic through BTDs theory for fun.  I have always thought the best 'story' for the media would be to knock out Clinton, and then have the Democrats lose.  How could they blow it (gasp).  So which story will the media push?   Which will get them greater ratings?  Seems kind of boring for Obama to get the nom and head right for the White House.

    Parent
    I used to think this too (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by kayla on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:08:57 AM EST
    I used to think that the media is just going to go for the most interesting story.  I made a bet with my boyfriend, the week before the TX and OH primaries about how the media was going to spin the story if Hillary wins both states.  I said that they would go for - Hillary Clinton stops Obama's growing momentum by winning two big states, one of which being the all important swing state of Ohio! - because I thought it was a more interesting and sensational story.

    My boyfriend didn't know exactly what story they would use, but he knew it was going to be negative and try to make her victory seem unimportant.  He was right.  I was shocked.  I lost 20 bucks I could have put toward her campaign.

    Parent

    LOL, oooh, humor warning please (none / 0) (#38)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:31:24 AM EST
    I almost blew my coffee laughing about the mouse analogy.  Too cute.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by kayla on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:58:00 AM EST
    I started to feel this way months ago, but every news cycle I believe it more and more.  Of course, the media is going to scrutinise him more when he's up against McCain, but there  will not be a universal attempt to destroy him like there will be for Hillary.  There is no Obama Derangement Syndrome.  But there is very real Hillary hate.  Keith Olbermann will not turn on him.  Neither will Mika Brzenski, or Huffington, or Daily Kos.  Hillary doesn't have popular websites or tv stations that support her wholeheartedly.  He does.  They will back him up.

    I don't know if this will carry him all the way to the white house because I don't know if he could handle the punches like she can (look at the ABC debate, or that press conference where he couldn't answer but "like eight questions").  I think it's a testiment to her strength and yes, the effectiveness of her campaign, that she's still in the race despite the strong bias against her.  So... I don't know what will happen, but I certainly think there is truth to BTD's basis for Obama support.  It's sad.

    Parent

    There's going to be a change (none / 0) (#28)
    by Sunshine on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:14:30 AM EST
    If it's Obama and McCain, Obama will lose some of his supporters, the ones that are there due to sexism will have to rethink who they will support, McCain doesn't face this problem...  That is also true for MSM, they also have some supporting Obama due to sexism...  Then you have the Clinton supporters, some too mad to vote and some out for revenge...  And to change candidates you have to come out with a reason other than sexism, that's where he will get the bad press...   Set back and watch....

    The Zeal to Bash (none / 0) (#48)
    by Athena on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:49:18 AM EST
    Agree - what will the press do when Hillary-bashing is no longer an option?  How will they get up in the morning?

    Parent
    Jeralyn defended McVeigh. So? (none / 0) (#55)
    by LibDemNY on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:04:29 AM EST
    Does that make her an associate of a terrorist?It is this kind of gotcha questioning that Stephanopoulos is despised for.

    Sure (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:11:08 AM EST
    Did you read the post? Do you know what my post is about? your comment seems rather random to me.

    Parent
    MoveOn's Afghanistan position (none / 0) (#61)
    by Serene1 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:17:26 AM EST
    Here

    http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/19/111736/838#3

    Resistance (none / 0) (#84)
    by kmblue on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 12:36:45 PM EST
    is futile! ;)

    I wonder (none / 0) (#87)
    by indy33 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 01:23:27 PM EST
    if the same people who attack Obama supporters as thinking he is God or a saint or the chosen one, are the same people who criticized Obama for trivializing religion in his comments? I do know that you are insulting peoples values and real religion when you make your claims of cultism.

    Are you insane? (none / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:08:46 PM EST
    What a comment.

    Parent
    It wouldnt offend you (none / 0) (#91)
    by indy33 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 02:20:01 PM EST
    to be constantly barraged with insults about how you thought Hillary was a "Saint" or the "messiah" and thats why you support her? That you are just naive and being taken in by this god like figure. You are just a cultist or an Obamaniac so filled with anti Hillary hate that you will stop at nothing to destroy her and place a crown on Obamas head. When people make these statements I say the exact same thing, Are you insane?

    Write what you like (none / 0) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:18:11 PM EST
    I find it hilarious that you are making these comments in serious fashion.

    Parent
    Funny (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:17:20 PM EST
    How a "lot of people" does not include anyone complaining about the DEBATES - Digby's post is BS.

    she knows the truth. Defending Hillary is VERBOTEN in the Creative Class. Too bad you are dishonest.

    Easily (none / 0) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:27:10 PM EST
    With due respect to Digby, she has been cowed by the Creative Class blogs.

    she knows the truth but is afraid to say it.

    Not alot of people want the Creative class blogs on their case or, worse for some of them, ignoring them.

    But I imagine you knew what I was talking about. Glenn Greenwald made a similarly misleading comment one time. He has to sell books though.

    Parent

    I do not believe that (none / 0) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:28:36 PM EST
    for a minute.

    Parent
    Digby is tired of having to sanitize the comments (none / 0) (#108)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:32:47 PM EST
    so in that respect, the Obamamaniacs have won because had she said anything else, she would have had to turn off comments for another week.

    Parent
    BTD, can you explain why you think that: (none / 0) (#111)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:02:44 PM EST
    "The Media will continue to coddle him [obama]".

    Your claim for Obama's greater electability is based on your belief that he will continue to be a 'media darling'. This is not a convincing argument. It's not even an argument, it's an unsubstantiated opinion; since, to my knowledge, you have never explained why, or how, you think Obama will retain this status in the GE.

    By my count, this is the third time I've asked you this question. You are under no obligation to respond (obviously). Personally, I don't know whether or not the media will continue to coddle Obama in the GE. But, apparently, you do. I'm betting that a lot of Clinton and Obama supporters would like to hear your reasoning on this.

    *Apologies if I've missed one of your posts wherein you've already addressed the question. Peace.

    I'm not defending that debate (none / 0) (#112)
    by kayla on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:15:12 PM EST
    It just wasn't worse than others.  The "Are you a muslim?" question is just incredibly easy to answer.  It's not a tough question or a policy question and at least they gave him the opportunity to clarify.  

    Whatever.  I think we can both agree that the ABC debate was crap and could have been better.

    Also the ABC moderators (none / 0) (#113)
    by kayla on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:29:04 PM EST
    weren't trying to be just as much a part of the debate as the candidates were.  Tim Russert has a tendency to actually argue with Hillary or Barack (but mostly Hillary) as if he wanted the spotlight on him too.  The moderators at the Philly debate pressed the candidates to go further at times, but for the most part, they let the candidates answer the questions thoroughly instead of cutting them off and restricting them from finishing their thought.

    Parent
    Boehlert's Revenge: Politico Asks Why Weren't You Whining When Clinton Got The Treatment? | 100 comments (100 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment