Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The PRESS v. Hillary Clinton: Pt 2. Let's Get Political

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:49 PM
Original message
The PRESS v. Hillary Clinton: Pt 2. Let's Get Political
Edited on Fri Mar-07-08 11:59 PM by McCamy Taylor
Hello Again! Last time I had gotten all the way up to late January 2007 in the right wing media conspiracy to make Hillary look like a lying, cheating Bitch and Obama look like a doping Black Muslim (who had been outed by Hillary, damn her already damned for all eternity soul!)

Before I get to that, there is one more flavor of bitchiness that I need to cover, the lying bitch . The corporate media, right, center and left has taken particular pains to tell the American public that Hillary is a great big fat liar. Lie, lie, lie. That is all she does from the moment she gets up until the moment she goes to sleep at night. There isnt an authentic bone in her body.

And would the American news media lie to you about something as important as whether or not a Democratic presidential candidate is a liar?


I. The Biggest Big Lie: Hillary is a Lying Bitch

Hey, it worked so well in 2000 against Gore. It was the MSMs finest hour. Much classier than sitting on the exit polls in Ohio 2004. That smacked of illegality. Common thuggery. This is practically art in comparison.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

In December, the WaPo announced that Hillary and Obama were expected to announce that they were running for president in January.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200701230011
However, when first Obama then Hillary announced their intentions to run for president in January, the corporate media pretended that it had not been told about Hillarys plan in advance, and instead it claimed that her campaign moved up its scheduled announcement date to compete with Obama. The implication was that she was trying to steal his thunder or overshadow him, and that she was lying when she said that she had always intended to declare in January.

The same Media Matters article lists several lies that the corporate media claims that Hillary told in the run up to this lie. She was accused of lying about her favorite movie (!!!), about when she made a video (!!!), about faking a phone call and faking the reason for canceling a meeting. In fact, there is no evidence that any lies were told. It was all a bunch of MSM hot air aimed at spoiling her presidential bid announcement.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200701240001
CYNTHIA TUCKER (Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor): Where Hillary doesn't want to be is in a position that makes her seem purely calculating. It's true I think that she has -- she --
FINEMAN: It'll be too late. It'll be too late for that.
MATTHEWS: Haven't you just defined her?


http://mediamatters.org/items/200701240011
(Dick Morris on Fox) Asserting that Clinton "has a deep-seated ideal of a liberal, nanny, socialist state" and "believes that it's a religious commitment," Morris purported to reveal that Clinton "feels the ends fully justify the means" and that she "consciously and deliberately is phony, manipulative, artificial, contrived, and she believes it is her duty to do that so that she can accomplish her objectives that she thinks are God's work."
Earlier in the segment, Morris claimed that she wears "a complete mask, a complete opposite of who she is."


http://www.postwritersgroup.com/archives/park0307.htm
Kathleen Parker Like a warped bell, Hillary Clinton rings untrue.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703140001
Media Matters debunks more lies.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200705100008
Media Matters debunks a Fox News lie that Hillary only started to smile and wear bright colors because she is running for president by showing lots of photos of her over the years looking exactly as she does now. (Proving that some lies are better than others)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080125/COMMENT...
Author R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. writing for the Washington Times says of Hillary her experience, which includes lying under oath, obstructing justice, slandering. All easily proven to be lies, since she has never been charged or indicted for anything.

II. Hillarys War

All these lies about Hillary being a liar have a purpose. They feed another Big Lie----the Irar War is Hillarys Warwhich feeds an even bigger Big Lie that Karl Rove told last fall---the War in Iraq is really a Democratic War. Recall that he insisted that the only reason the Senate voted in the Iraq War Resolution in the Fall of 2002 was because Senate Democrats insisted upon a vote. In Roves warped world view that makes them 100% responsible. And Hillary is the designated Democrat who has been selected to carry the weight of our collective sins---so that the GOP nominee won't have to.

This is a Big Lie which is particularly deadly within the Democratic Primary where the War is massively unpopular. It is also the MSM lie that has benefited Obama the most. For the better part of last year, the nations journalists insisted upon portraying Hillary as a hawk with essentially the same voting record as John McCain who was always gung ho on the waruntil she decided to run for president, as which point she did a sudden about face. Obama himself has done nothing to change this misperception, since it allows him to present himself as a dove to Hillarys hawk.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703220017
Chris Matthews: "Hillary is for this war!"

Pardon my French, but this is bull shit!

http://mediamatters.org/items/200705010006
Media Matters says it more clearly than I can, When ABCs Jake Tapper claimed that Hillary voted in 2002 for a war resolution or declaration of war against Iraq, MM actually went back and looked at what Hillary voted for and more importantly, found the statement she made at the time.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our Nation.
snip
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our Nation, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world."


Got that? bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely and My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism .

As early as Oct. 2003 Hillary had separated from Bush on the handling of the Iraq War:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200705300003

Hillary: Among the many questions that I and others raised and the many criticisms we lodged against the use of the authority , which I and the majority of this body voted for, was the administration's aborting of the United Nations process and the inspections regime in order to launch military action.


Hillary gave similar statements over the years up until 2006, which is when corporate media reporters claim that she had a sudden (calculated) change of heart about the war.

Ok, armed with what Hillary actually said, here are the media distortions:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200701300002
Jake Tapper suggests that Democrats may not find Hillarys anti-war stance authentic

Well, they wont if a bunch of reporters tell them that it isnt and that she is a pathological liar.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200705060001
On May 6, Fox News Sunday panelists repeated an emerging myth that legislation Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) announced she is introducing with Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) "to sunset the authorization for the war in Iraq" in October 2007 represents -- in the words of host Chris Wallace a "big change" for Clinton "who has previously rejected timetables for withdrawal and now supports this idea of rescinding the original authorization to use force."


The Washington Post and CNNs Bill Schneider follow suit and call this a sudden change in her position.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200705220001
Bay Buchanan claims Hillary was a staunch supporter of the war and only recently changed her views.

In a similar vein, the MSM was quick to claim Hillary as a supporter of the surge even though what she said about it was

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/us/politics/21vets.ht...

KANSAS CITY, Mo., Aug. 20 Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton told an audience of war veterans on Monday that some elements of the strategy in Iraq appeared to be achieving success, but said a military solution was unattainable and the best way to honor the service of American troops was to bring them home.
Weve begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, its working, said Mrs. Clinton, the New York Democrat and candidate for her partys presidential nomination. Were just years too late changing our tactics. We cant ever let that happen again. We cant be fighting the last war; we have to be preparing to fight the new war.


Somehow, the corporate media transformed this into the Big Lie Hillary supports the surge which Media Matters documents was reported on MSNBC, New York Post, Drudge, Washington Times, and Face the Nation.

I wonder where Democrats got the idea that Hillary was a hawk, no different from John McCain and George Bush?

Like the first big media skirmish which I describe in The Press v. Hillary Clinton Part 1 , Hillarys War hurt her within the Democratic Party and it aided her rivals---or, in this case, rival since the MSM was showering Obama with free publicity in direct proportion to the way that it was ignoring Edwards. That painted Obama as the dove to Hillarys hawk---even though their voting records in Congress on the Iraq War were nearly identical.

III. Who is Afraid of Hillarycare?

Since Hillarys name is synonymous healthcare, attacking her on strengths is important. But how do you make healthcare scary in a Democratic Primary?

Never underestimate the ingenuity of the press when it comes to fear tactics.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709170005
Democrats are afraid of corporations, so Newsday reported that Hillarys 2006 re-election campaign got $850,000---putting her second highest of any senator for health care industry donations. It did not mention that most of it came from doctors, nurses and providers, and that if their donations were subtracted she fell off the top 25 list. Medical providers have interests that often exactly opposite to corporations. Most are in favor of a single payer health care system---that goes for doctors too, now that they have to deal with paperwork and billing hassles. Simply saying that Hillary gets a lot of money from the health care industry is a deliberate distortion that borders on a lie if you do not explain the different needs and interests of health care workers and the health care corporations. The result of stories like this is to paint Hillary as a corporate candidate.

In case that was not scary enough, the Drudge Report cooked up an even scarier lie

http://mediamatters.org/items/200709180016
On September 18, the Drudge Report, the website of Internet gossip Matt Drudge, featured the lead headline "HEALTH INSURANCE PROOF REQUIRED FOR WORK" under a picture of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). However, the Associated Press article to which the headline linked did not report that Clinton's recently proposed health care plan would require people to show proof of health insurance "for work." Rather, it reported that, in an interview with the AP, Clinton said: "At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed" for people who do not purchase health insurance as required by her plan. According to the article, Clinton also said, "We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans." The AP article also stated that Clinton "said she could envision a day when 'you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview -- like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination,' but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress."


The New York Post picked up the story for people who do not read the Drudge Report. Note that the fear issue raised by the Drudge Report would later be exploited by the Obama Campaign when it circulated it Harry and Louise II ads, claiming that Hillary would punish people who could not or would not participate in her universal healthcare system. Those ads were more believable, because the right wing had already paved the way with their lies.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200710300004
Perhaps the cruelest lie was the one stated on CNBC, when Hillary was blamed for the fact that 40 million Americans lack health insurance. Forget Bill Kristol and the GOP plan to keep Dems from enacting a healthcare policy. Forget Harry and Louise. Forget the health insurance industry lobbying and pr campaigning. Forget the Bush administration. The War in Iraq was Hillarys War and American Insurance Crisis was Hillarys Insurance Crisis. She probably bought the hammer and nails used to crucify Jesus, too.

I have read posts at DU in which seemingly sane people blame Hillary for the insurance crisis in America. Or, sometimes they blame Clintons penis. I wonder which health insurance board his penis sits on.

IV. Hillary the Lizard Lady

Those looked like real tears to me, but the boys and girls in the press corp were not fooled for a moment. Those were crocodile tears!

Actually, they were fooled for a moment. Before Hillary had the nerve to win New Hampshire, the state that was supposed to seal Obamas fortunes the way that it sealed McGoverns fortunes back in 1972, the press took a ghoulish delight in watching Hillary break down. Was this her Muskie moment? Was she too weak to be commander-in-chief? Was she all washed up?

When she won New Hampshire on a tide of Irish-American womens solidarity---who can a Catholic woman trust better to protect her reproductive rights, a woman or a man?---the press was not happy. Not happy at all.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801080008
While discussing a recent campaign event in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, during which Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) voice broke as she talked about why she is seeking the presidency, several media figures described Clinton's actions as "calculated," reviving a characterization frequently made by the media that Clinton is "calculating." For instance, right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin asserted that "this woman is all about calculation," while Weekly Standard editor and New York Times columnist William Kristol said, "I think no Clinton cries without calculating first" and nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh described the occurrence as "motional blackmail," adding: "This is calculated."


The corporate media verdict was that Hillary the automaton has no real human emotions, so Hillary the liar must have been crying crocodile tears in order to trick the voters of New Hampshire into picking her over Obama. This is another odd notion that I see around DU a lot.

V. Hillary is a lying, cheating RACIST bitch

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Hillary had proven that the MSM could not do to her what CREEP did to Muskie back in 1972. She was made of sterner stuff. Time to try to really desperate tactics from Pat Buchanans list of dirty tricks (see Part 1). Time to pull out the race card.
Those who think that the Clintons pulled out the race card have not being paying attention.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/chris_matthews_racist_...
MSNBC host Chris Matthews didnt just uncork his line on Primary Night about how New Hampshire Democrats would have displayed their racism to pollsters if they heard an Archie Bunker voice on the other end of the line. He repeated it on Wednesdays Morning Joe show on MSNBC. He was upset at anyone who thought the pollsters and pundits were wrong about the Obama victory, when white voters lied to pollsters: Methinks Paleface speak with forked tongue.
Matthews declared he thought this was over in 2006: I thought white voters had stopped being what they want to be. And you know what it tells me? People arent proud of who they are. Host Joe Scarborough, asking Matthews to address the alleged bigotry in New England, drew out Matthews, the former top aide to Boston-area Rep. Tip ONeill, to denounce the whole Boston area: Theres different kinds of prejudice, as you know, in the north than there is in the south, but it exists. It may not be I think Im better than you, but it might be I dont want to live next door to you.


Say what? That lying sack of shit! I have never been to New England in my life, but I took one look at the pre election poll numbers and looked at the vote and said to myself Hmmm. New England. Lot of Catholics up there. The women decided that they trusted another woman more than a man. I can understand that. I come from an Irish-American family myself.

And so does Tweety. He knew perfectly well what the final analysis would show, and he came up with that race baiting theory of his to interject race into the race before South Carolina. And boy did it work. We had people at DU swearing that New Hampshire was full of bigots.

Then there was this from Pat Buchanan Ghettoizing Barack in which he describes a distorted view of how the brilliant Clintons deliberately played the race card to shoot themselves in the foot and lose South Carolina and build up sympathy for Obama, because, because.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/ghett...

Forget Pat Buchanan. He still thinks that Black People are scary.
http://www.grandtheftelectionohio.com/060410.htm

Here is how the so called playing of the race card went down.

Hillary said:
I would, and I would point to the fact that that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality. The power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president who said, "We are going to do it," and actually got it accomplished.


Three times the NYT printed this quote minus the part in bold, changing the meaning. Hillary had meant to compare Obama to the youthful but relatively inexperienced JFK and herself to the older, wilier LBJ. The change of the quote made it look like she was comparing herself to MLK Jr. Media Matters kept correcting the NYT and they kept doing it anyway. Soon, everyonethe WaPo, the La Times-- was repeating the phony version of her quote. Fox News even changed what she said to make it sound worse.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801150016
An Associated Press article reported that House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn "expressed disappointment with Clinton after she said it took President Lyndon B. Johnson, a white politician, to finally realize King's dream of racial equality by signing the Civil Rights Act." But that is not what Clinton said.


At the same time Bill Clinton gave a speech in which he discussed Obamas record on the war. He stated that the differences which Obama claimed between his war stance and Hillary's were a fairy tale.
Read about how good old Tim Russert edited what Bill said and played it here
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801130003

so that it would sound like Bill called Obamas campaign a fairy tale. I guess Russert was trying to suggest that Clinton was intimating (on the eve of South Carolina, a state which Jesse Jackson once carried) that only in fairy tales could a Black men become president of the United States. The problem was that is not what Bill Clinton said. He said that Obama was distorting his own anti-war history---and accusations of lying are color blind, as Hillary Clinton and Al Gore can attest.

Newsweek, the Washington Post and others picked up this mischaracterization of Bill Clintons remarks. Obama supporters at DU trumpeted both sets of MSM lies as if they were gospel truth---and proof that the Clintons had suddenly metamorphosed into cretinous low brows who plotted to score points in a state like South Carolina by pissing off the largest voting block.

Obama, as usual, cleaned up, thanks to the media Fatwa.

Oh, I almost forget one. It isnt exactly a racially charged charge, though many in the corporate media and here at DU pretended to think that it was. Cocaine. Plenty of White and Hispanic folks use it. The issue has haunted Obama, since he decided to include it in his memoir. However, it is unlikely to sway Democratic voters, who are not really interested in sin issues.
When Clinton campaign co-chair Billy Shaheen suggested exploiting the issue, he had to resign. That should have been the end of the story. However, the MSM was not about to let a drug story drop. So Chris Matthews invited Mark Penn, David Axelrod and Joe Trippi on his show and began badgering all them with questions about Obamas drug use---did he share drugs, did he sell drugs? Several times, Clintons chief strategist indicated that he wanted to change the subject but Matthews kept bringing the conversation back to the subject of drugs until finally Penn said the word cocaine at which point Trippi of all people went ballistic.

Here is the link to the transcript:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22259731 /

Now, here is where things get surreal at MSNBCa network which I am beginning to believe exists somewhere on the other side of the Looking Glass. Somehow Tweety has managed to convince a bunch of seemingly sane people at MSNBC that Penn came onto his show and like someone with a strange form of tourettes he just started mouthing off about cocaine out of the blue, making him the second Clinton staffer to accuse Obama in public of cocaine use. Be sure to read the transcript of the show, before you go on so that you appreciate how unreal the media distortions that follow are.
Keep in mind that Tweety had discussed the fact that the issue had turned into a campaign fund raising gold mine for Obama and was garnering him support, as you would expect in the Democratic primary. Therefore, talking about the issue helps Obama in the primaries (it hurts him in the generals) and hurts Hillary.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801150018
Matthews claims that three Clinton staffers have publicly mentioned Obamas drug use by adding Penns appearance on his show above to BET Founder Bob Johnsons unsolicited (and uncontrollable) comments---billionaires are never staffers.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801180014
Jonathan Alter claims that Penn brought up the subject of drugs on Hardball (!!)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802070002
On the February 7 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, correspondent David Shuster said to Mark Penn, chief strategist for the Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY): "About five or six weeks ago, you were on Hardball with David Axelrod and Joe Trippi , and you were the one who brought up a word and reminded people of Barack Obama's past drug use." Shuster then asked Penn: "Do you now acknowledge that that tactic was a mistake?"


Say what? I am surprised Penn did not lean over and slap Shuster. Or at least cuss him up one side of the head and down another.

Not long afterwards, David Shuster would accuse the Clintons of pimping out Chelsea. Poor David. I can not feel sorry for him anymore, not after he lied about what happened on Hardball on Dec 13 with Mark Penn right there in front him. What a disgusting game of gotcha. He must have learned it from Tweety---along with the misogyny.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/us/politics/01press.h...
This NYT article originally created a stir---and made the David Shuster the victim along with reinforcing the Big Lie Hillary is a Bitch-- because it claimed that Hillary had demanded that Shuster be fired. In fact, she only asked that MSNBC correct problems within their network. There is a retraction online nownot that this makes a difference to the millions who read the original story, or the people at DU who called Hillary a bitch for over reacting.

The article contains some other interesting facts:
The night after Mrs. Clinton reprimanded Tim Russert and Brian Williams during the Cleveland debate on MSNBC for asking her a disproportionate number of first questions, she appeared Wednesday at a rally in St. Clairsville, Ohio. When someone stood to castigate the news media for being unfair to her, the audience cheered, with some even turning to cast a collective evil eye on the reporters in the high school gymnasium.
In a New York Times/CBS News telephone poll conducted Feb. 20-24 and released Tuesday, nearly half of those respondents who described themselves as voters in Democratic primaries or caucuses said the news media had been harder on Mrs. Clinton than other candidates. (Only about 1 in 10 suggested the news media had been harder on Mr. Obama.)


The press had better be careful. We learned in New Hampshire what happens when people get the impression that you are beating up on a woman.

VI. Hillary is Richard Nixon and that is the worst kind of bitch. And Obama is still a Scary Black Muslim

http://mediamatters.org/items/200803050001
Discussing Sen. Hillary Clinton's answer to a question about whether she believed Sen. Barack Obama is a Muslim, Newsweek editor Howard Fineman said that Clinton's answer was "positively Nixonian in its pauses and innuendos." In fact, Clinton's first three words in response to the question -- "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" -- were, "Of course not."


Fineman is either the biggest, fattest liar of them all---or he was too drunk during the 60 Minutes interview to pay attention so he did like everyone else at MSNBC seems to do and he took Tweetys word for it (bad idea).

This story got legs at yet another right wing site, this time the good old Drudge Report, which edited Hillarys comment.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803030004
A Drudge Report headline linking to a 60 Minutes interview of Sen. Hillary Clinton read, "Hillary: Obama Not Muslim 'As Far As I Know' ...," falsely suggesting that Clinton characterized the issue of Sen. Barack Obama's religion as unresolved. In fact, she did the opposite.
In fact, she did the opposite. Correspondent Steve Kroft first asked Clinton, "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?" to which Clinton replied, "Of course not. I mean, that's -- you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that." Kroft then asked, "And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim," to which Clinton replied, "Right. Right." Only after Kroft went on to ask, "You don't believe that he's a Muslim or implying, right?," did Clinton respond, "No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know" .
Following Clinton's response to Kroft's third query on the subject, Kroft said, "It's just scurrilous --" to which Clinton responded, "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."


Please watch the video of the interview that accompanies the link above. Hillary is no more Nixonian than Obama is. Fineman is talking out of his ass. However MSNBC and NBC continued to promote Drudges mischaracterization of Hillarys response, precipitating this

http://mediamatters.org/items/200803060002
In his March 6 Washington Post column, Harold Meyerson characterized Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's remarks about Sen. Barack Obama's religion during the March 2 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes as "hemming and hawing." Meyerson wrote: "Party leaders must make clear to the candidates that some attacks and innuendos should be out of bounds -- such as Clinton's hemming and hawing on '60 Minutes' over whether Obama really is Christian."


Notice that the net result of this Drudge Report attack is just like the "Obama is a Muslim" story from one year ago. It furthers the Big Lie that Obama is a Muslim by keeping the question on TV news shows and in the pages of newspapers, so that general election voters all across America keep thinking about it. All this thanks to a well timed question asked by a Viacom emnployee followed by the Drudge Report and then the good old guys at GE. And it paints Hillary at the villain, clearing the way for Obama the Muslim to be the nominee, since Democrats are so ready to blame the bitch and so naive about where the real danger lies.

All of this smoke and mirrors only works because nowadays nobody in the MSM does their own legwork. They are all lazy. They get one of their number to write a story, and then the rest of them feel free to repeat it endlessly until someone says "That's wrong" and then they finally have to stop. By then, the damage is done. Next time, they pick someone else to make a mistake or misquote and concoct a different lie so that they can send around another bit of propaganda. That way no one looks bad or particularly inept. There is safety in numbers.

Thanks again to Media Matters, a must read for everyone who isn't sure if what they are seeing and/or reading is the truth or corporate media bullshit. Hillary is a shrill bitch, a man-hating bitch, all Hillary's supporters are man-hating bitches and miscellaneous media lies in Part III. See you then!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-07-08 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
1. K and R!
:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
2. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
candice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
21. Thank you! How can the truth be told?
The MSM foists Bu$h over Gore and tears down a woman who has spent her entire life in public service and would be one of our better Presidents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Petrushka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:00 AM
Response to Original message
3. Thank you . . . looking forward to Part III . . . K & R


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
4. Kicking, Kicking. Kicking. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. I just read it all the way--whow. KICK
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thunder rising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:14 AM
Response to Original message
5. the Iraq War is Hillarys War...of course it is. It is! She didn't perform her due diligence and 4K
troops are dead because she's lazy and triangulating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 03:00 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. By your "logic" the troops are dead because of BO funding the war. This Bushco war--get it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 02:59 AM
Response to Original message
6. REC-Thank you for you work on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susankh4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 04:44 AM
Response to Original message
9. K & R & blogroll!
Thanks for your hard work, McCamy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 05:46 AM
Response to Original message
10. The anti-Hillary people are complete pawns of the biased media. Yet they're so proud of themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:37 AM
Response to Original message
11. Didn't Anybody Ever Teach You: You Can't Prove a Negative?
However, it only takes one stupid lie about Peace in Northern Ireland to prove the positive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
planetc Donating Member (247 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
12. Thank you for this excellent compendium of the dirty tactics of the media
I have been watching DU fall prey to the quotation-out-of-context, and the sweeping generalization, and label-of-the-day, and the assumption of ulterior motives, and the lies, lies, lies. You've done a splendid job of sorting it all out and sourcing the mud balls.

Also, is it possible to recommend a post twice? Probably not, but if I could I would recommend it ...oh, about 12 times.

You are doing good work here, and keeping alive my hope for the eventual triumph of the forces of linguistic order and civilization.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcollier Donating Member (887 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Hillary is about to enter the Vetting process

I was reading post after post a few weeks ago; It was ok for many Hillary supporters to bash the hell out of Obama.... Well what are you crying about...

You wanted to spark up debate... Well now you have it... Don't blame the other side if you don't have what you need to win...

Besides, Hillary is doing plenty of that already....


And it's not just 'Obama supporters' who are angry. There are tons of people now coming out publically against her tactics who have not spoken out
before and many who are withdrawing their support because of it. But you have every right to defend your candidate to the death...so carry on.


"Lastly, it's time for me to step out of the sh*tstorm and take a shower to wash off the slime and disappointment. Ive had enough of the Clinton fluffing of McCain, and

Im done with her. Frankly Ive looked foolish trying to defend her and her campaigns burn-the-house-down-to-get-the-nomination strategy, and Im tired of seeing this

message and these tactics. Politics at this level is not softball, but as I have said before, being an arsonist does not recommend one for the partys nomination."

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012095.php

I ask you to join the Obama team to help take our country in an new direction, one of openness, honesty, integrity, hope, respect, wise judgment and prosperity...

Together we can make the difference. We all have worked hard to get power back to the people. With Barack Obama, we have that opportunity...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. The title of that post is a hoot. The press has been "vetting" Hillary for two decades.
There are less polite words for what they do to Hillary. If she was as powerful as they claim she is (Arkansas Mafia, laser beam eyes, lesbian hit squads) they would not dare cross her. I mean, if she was really so hell bent on revenge, wouldn't the streets be littered with the bodies of journalists by now?

Hillary is the easiest of targets---a woman in public life who isn't really rich, just wealthy, with no ties to the military or CIA or police and no ties to any mega-corporation that can topple governments. Easy to pick on. Not nearly as scary, in reporters eyes, as Bill, who makes journalists look dumb in interviews. Hillary is much nicer to them. I think that they may take some of their anger and inferiority feelings about Bill's intellectual and rhetorical superiority out on Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andromeda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. Candidates bash each other during campaigns.
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 06:43 PM by Andromeda
Hillary hasn't said anything about Obama that isn't true. He's given as good as he gets when it comes to "bashing."

Obama's a manipulator who uses other people to do his dirty work. He hasn't got the guts to say anything to Hillary's face or to her supporters. Instead, as I witnessed, (and I gotta tell you it made me sick to my stomach) he was instructing reporters circled around him on how to handle Hillary and whining like a big overgrown baby about big, bad, mean Hillary.

Hillary has big brass ovaries and Obama has balls of crepe-paper. He's a phony and a wimp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #20
26. You got it! Imagine-he already answered that awful barrage of-eight-questions!
How dare they ask him more!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
15. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Don't worry. They will hate Obama next fall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. You're fooling yourself. The media is giving Hillary a pass. Watch the Wyoming spin.
Vin Gupta is a mogul who owns the company that does CNN's polling. Hillary has most of the media pundits among her friends. The NYT is still playing Hillary shill.

Face facts, Hillary is no more hated by the media than any Democrat. Kerry won the nomination. Does the media love John Kerry?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. "Brokered Dem Convention" by Karl Rove, recycled from Pat Buchanan 1972
The minute that Obama passed Hillary in delegates, the TV coverage of Hillary improved.

However, the MSM can not go back and change the record of the last year---or undo the harm they did. She was the overwhelming front runner and their job was to boot Edwards out of the race and to build Obama up and cut her down until the two were neck and neck a la Humphrey and McGovern in Miami 1972. Rove intends for Obama to be the McGovern--but he does not want him built up too far. He wants a squeaker win and a fractured Dem party with lots of angry women.

Nixon left McGovern alone until the nomination was sewn up---and then they tore down his character, which was his best asset as it is with Obama. They started with Eagleton. The FBI had his psych files so it is probably CREEP that ratted him out to the press.

But you know how it went from there.

When will Dems learn that Divide and Conquer is the GOP's favorite game?

Solidarity!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #19
27. LOL. With 'friends' like those...Hillary is just behaving decently towards her enemies...
...don't mistake that behaviour with true friendship! Grace under pressure is what it's about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Asia Expat Donating Member (116 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
16. Wow!!! What a fantastic read.
Thank you, and again Wow!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andromeda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
18. Thank you once again for a good
and factual read. I get the feeling that nobody is listening sometimes. It's amazing to me how the media get away with their distortions and lies.

I'm disappointed in the media pundits whom many in the industry consider to be unbiased and fair actually are all members of the same club. Once their talking points for the day are repeated over and over, ad nauseam, they become a permanent part of the record and are not rescinded.

What I think is particularly funny is when the media examine themselves when accused of bias. They always deny that they are biased and turn it around on the accuser(s).

They media have too much power and when they use that power for destructive purposes and when their motives are questioned, they are not above the kind of vindicative and petty retaliations intended to belittle and discredit those who disagree with them.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
22. Your OP reads like the stink we get some so many Obamafolk here on DU!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
24. Oh, too late to rec, but can still kick!
Thank you again for an excellent and comprehensive piece on this BS, from which BO has benefited mightily. A lot of it doesn't differ from what some DUers toss around on this site, too. Appalling. Disgusting. Unfortunately, I fear that those who should read this and your other pieces on the subject are the same ones who will assiduously avoid it. Thank you for this important public service, nonetheless. You should really compile all your journal posts and send it to say, Bill Moyers? Or has he done a show on this topic already?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Some one will write a book about it after it is all over. And everyone
now posting at DU echoing all the MSM lies will lie and say "I saw through all the lies. I knew what was going on all the time." Just like Tweety with his "I always knew there were no WMDs" Because no one wants to admit that they were fooled by Karl Rove recycling 30 year old dirty tricks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. Alas, you're right, y'know. Still, your work is incredible. Thank you again.
I only hope their intended audience would at least surreptitiously read your posts - maybe a few will really start thinking on their own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 30th 2014, 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC