Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Must-Read Daily Howler

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
 
Nine Donating Member (472 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:02 PM
Original message
Must-Read Daily Howler
Must-read March 7 piece from one of the best sites on the Internet(s):

http://www.dailyhowler.com /

In todays Post and Times columns, E. J. Dionne and David Brooks express a similar view of the Democratic campaign. Clinton has shown she is willing to say anything about Obama to bring him down, Dionne mournfully writes. But then, Brooks is on a similar wave length. Speaking of Obama, he says this: When he was under assault in South Carolina, he rose above the barrage and made the Clintons look sleazy. A bit later, he presents the boo-hooing, goo-goo view of recent events: In Texas and Ohio, Clinton attacked , and the attacks worked. Rachel Maddow couldnt sob it out better.

Well probably examine this view of the race in more detail next week. But please note: Almost surely, this is not the way the Clinton campaign would describe these matters. Did Obama rise above in South Carolina? The Clinton campaign would most likely say that Obama, his campaign and his surrogates played the race card during that period, making a string of claims (some of which, to be honest, were completely absurd) which painted the Clintons as slobbering racists. Sean Wilentz doesnt speak for the Clinton campaign, but his recent piece in The New Republic probably captures the Clinton camps general view of these matters.

Which campaigns view of these matters is right? Its always hard to sort out such matters. But quite commonly, the press corps adopts one view or another during the course of our White House campaigns. During the primary race in Campaign 2000, for example, the mainstream press corps brilliant savants widely adopted the story-lines being pushed by Bradley and McCain, their widely-beloved twin authentics. Result? Al Gore now holds the Nobel Peace Prizebut at the time, Dionnes brilliant colleagues were reciting a mantra: Al Gore is willing to do and say anything! Dionne was too gutless to speak at the timeand this morning, he recites the same line, this time aimed at Clinton. Clinton has shown she is willing to say anything about Obama, the sage instructs. Alas! He kept his trap shut during Campaign 2000, speaks up unwisely today.

(snip)

Clintons tough anti-media campaign! Oh. Our. God. It cant get dumber! If we could adapt an old talking-point: These babies will do and say anything! Has Clinton run a tough anti-media campaign? The statement is so foolish we barely know how to start. Eight years ago, Dionnea Hardball regularsat around saying nothing for twenty straight months, while his cohort savaged Gore, calling him every name in the book. Eight years later, he sat around saying nothing last year while major members of his cohort (sorryof his social set) conducted a gender-based trashing of Clintona trashing which began to reach full flower on October 30. But readers, theres one more bit of Hard Pundit Law ruling life inside Dionnes Village: You arent allowed to criticize the brilliant mainstream press corps! (Unless you complain of their liberal bias, a complaint which is thoroughly kosher.) In recent weeks, Clinton has finally uttered a few modest peeps, saying things so baldly obvious that Saturday Night Live could even see what was happening. And here is E. J., crying real tears, discussing her tough campaign!


Wish I could post more than 4 paragraphs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Nine Donating Member (472 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
1. and another good recent one (March 6)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I was going to post that one the other day. Sadly, the Obamans

won't look at any evidence of the media bias against Clinton and for
Obama, much less ask themselves what it means.

It means, of course, that the media are under orders from management
to get Obama the nomination and then tear him apart while having an ephiphany over that straight-shooter John McCain.

Result: President McCain.
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 Thu Apr 17th 2014, 05:41 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