HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » STUNNER: NYT Reports that...

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 01:55 PM

STUNNER: NYT Reports that Bernie Considers His Campaign Strategy a ‘Character Assault’ on Hillary

Blue Nation Review


http://bluenationreview.com/bernie-considers-his-campaign-strategy-a-character-assault-on-hillary/

A New York Times story on why Bernie Sanders is losing to Hillary Clinton contains a major admission: Bernie’s ‘release the transcripts’ attack line is “the sort of character assault he has long opposed.”



I read it and just can't find where Bernie actualy said he considers his campaign strategy a ‘Character Assault’ on Hillary. Can anyone explain this to me?

Is this supposed to be the stunner??

Mr. Sanders’s advisers urged him to challenge Mrs. Clinton over accepting $675,000 from Goldman Sachs for delivering three speeches, according to two Sanders advisers. Mr. Sanders, hunched over a U-shaped conference table, rejected it as a personal attack on Mrs. Clinton’s income — the sort of character assault he has long opposed. She has the right to make money, he offered.


62 replies, 3531 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 62 replies Author Time Post
Reply STUNNER: NYT Reports that Bernie Considers His Campaign Strategy a ‘Character Assault’ on Hillary (Original post)
Autumn Apr 2016 OP
Merryland Apr 2016 #1
Autumn Apr 2016 #2
reformist2 Apr 2016 #28
Jitter65 Apr 2016 #3
revbones Apr 2016 #4
msongs Apr 2016 #7
Autumn Apr 2016 #11
Dragonfli Apr 2016 #12
Nanjeanne Apr 2016 #5
Autumn Apr 2016 #13
frylock Apr 2016 #46
Autumn Apr 2016 #50
frylock Apr 2016 #56
Autumn Apr 2016 #58
frylock Apr 2016 #59
rhett o rick Apr 2016 #6
Vinca Apr 2016 #8
karynnj Apr 2016 #23
Deny and Shred Apr 2016 #53
jillan Apr 2016 #9
snowy owl Apr 2016 #10
Jim Lane Apr 2016 #27
snowy owl Apr 2016 #61
Jim Lane Apr 2016 #62
Octafish Apr 2016 #14
Autumn Apr 2016 #15
DrFunkenstein Apr 2016 #16
felix_numinous Apr 2016 #17
Orsino Apr 2016 #18
Maedhros Apr 2016 #19
BernieforPres2016 Apr 2016 #21
Autumn Apr 2016 #22
BernieforPres2016 Apr 2016 #32
Autumn Apr 2016 #33
BernieforPres2016 Apr 2016 #35
Autumn Apr 2016 #36
BernieforPres2016 Apr 2016 #38
Maedhros Apr 2016 #24
mmonk Apr 2016 #55
Maedhros Apr 2016 #57
Skwmom Apr 2016 #20
robbedvoter Apr 2016 #25
Autumn Apr 2016 #29
robbedvoter Apr 2016 #47
Autumn Apr 2016 #48
DebbieCDC Apr 2016 #26
Armstead Apr 2016 #30
Jim Lane Apr 2016 #31
Autumn Apr 2016 #34
Bill USA Apr 2016 #37
Autumn Apr 2016 #40
Bill USA Apr 2016 #45
JackRiddler Apr 2016 #39
Autumn Apr 2016 #41
JackRiddler Apr 2016 #49
Autumn Apr 2016 #52
GreatGazoo Apr 2016 #42
Autumn Apr 2016 #43
GreatGazoo Apr 2016 #51
grasswire Apr 2016 #60
jwirr Apr 2016 #44
Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #54

Response to Autumn (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 01:58 PM

1. blue nation review is owned by David Brock - n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Merryland (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 02:03 PM

2. Yep, David 'Anita Hill is a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty' Brock

He seems to write a lot of fiction and smears, still.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:32 PM

28. So many loathsome, disgusting people at Camp Hillary, it's hard to stomach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 02:05 PM

3. And that makes this untrue???? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jitter65 (Reply #3)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 02:06 PM

4. Pretty much anything from there is pure pravda-style propaganda.

 

That site is just a joke now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 02:18 PM

7. sortalike TYT eh nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jitter65 (Reply #3)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 02:27 PM

11. Link to where Bernie admitted His Campaign Strategy is a ‘Character Assault’ on Hillary please.

Actual words by Bernie admitting exactly that in the NYT piece or in David 'Anita Hill is a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty' Brock's smear piece . Not what is brocksplained in the article please, I want to see the part of Bernie admitting that His Campaign Strategy is a ‘Character Assault’ on Hillary. I can't find where Bernie said those words so that would be a lie, no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jitter65 (Reply #3)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 02:32 PM

12. It makes it nothing more than campaign propaganda

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/david-brock-blue-nation-review_us_564f0f3de4b0879a5b0a7bc5


True Blue Media, a newly formed company incorporated by Brock, has acquired progressive news website Blue Nation Review. BNR’s previous owner, MOKO Social Media Limited, will retain a 20 percent stake in the new entity while Brock will hold the remaining 80 percent equity balance. The sale was finalized Monday night.

Peter Daou, digital media strategist for Clinton’s 2008 campaign, will serve as the new CEO of True Blue Media....


....Brock runs Media Matters for America, a nonprofit that has targeted conservative media outlets, particularly Fox News. He also runs the pro-Clinton Super PAC Correct The Record, which claims the legal right to coordinate with the Clinton campaign.

Under Brock, the Democratic-leaning outlet will likely be a reliable defender of and advocate for Clinton. Williams himself has long advocated on Clinton’s behalf, though he has also gone after Democrats.

Fans of writer Goldie Taylor regularly visited BNR, but Taylor has since departed and filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against MOKO Social Media. Insiders say that much of BNR’s readership was purchased through paid promotion. MOKO Social Media CEO Ian Rodwell said the site spent on the order of “a few hundred thousand” over the last year for such promotion.

Sources said that Brock’s organization will actually be paid to take over BNR, rather than the other way around, given the site’s operating losses

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 02:08 PM

5. You have to use your Decoder Ring to understand Brockian!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjeanne (Reply #5)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 02:35 PM

13. That brocksplaining will stain your clothes or any thing it gets on.

Nasty stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #13)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 05:08 PM

46. Shout it out!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #46)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 05:42 PM

50. Whoa!! Warning dude. I thought I was in deep trouble

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #50)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 06:34 PM

56. Sorry!

Sorry for that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #56)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 07:16 PM

58. This young girl may be scarred for life

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #58)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 07:59 PM

59. That's certainly something she will not soon forget.

Brave young woman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 02:12 PM

6. Spoken like the true mouthpiece for the Ruling Class. "Clinton has a right to graft." nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 02:19 PM

8. I heard a Hillary spokesperson whining about the negative campaign Bernie is running.

It made me laugh. If they think what is coming at them now is negative, they're in for a real shocker if she's the nominee. I can't be the only one who's noticed the GOP is holding its fire. Once the general election starts the flood gates will open and then we'll see bona fide negative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #8)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:18 PM

23. Unfortunately, I think you are correct and HRC supporters forget she has never faced the Republicans

on the Presidential level. I know she did as First Lady, but 1996 was a very different time, with a very different media.

No Republican will say that they have heard enough about her damn email. I wish the powers that be had not essentially cleared the field for her when many had to know this vulnerability existed - the Obama administration had to know at least by spring 2014, when they quietly demanded she give them the emails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #23)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 05:59 PM

53. Agree

Bernie has run almost exclusively on his own message and not gone negative, despite this pathetic article.

2014 was marked by the Dems running a Republican-lite midterm platform. They intend to run the same in the GE.

She will get torched badly on a multitude of topics that Bernie has been too genteel to attack. Most of those states in which she piled up her delegate lead will go the other way in the GE.

Expect the DNC to punch the retarded lefty-hippies to avoid self-reflection and keep the corporate gravy train rolling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 02:20 PM

9. Can we delete this smut? Thanks. Certain people around here only read the headlines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 02:20 PM

10. NY Times that changed "victories for Bernie" to "modest wins for Bernie"? Think for yourself!

They are in the pocket of Clinton. You need to read and analyze critically. Besides, don't you think for yourself? Do you think knowing what she told the bankers and wall street is important or not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:27 PM

27. No need to criticize the Times here, because the paper didn't say what the Clintonites claim. (n/t)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #27)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 08:19 PM

61. then what is the story if they are not just giving light to nonsense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snowy owl (Reply #61)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 11:13 PM

62. The Times had a real story, even though the BNR spin on it was dishonest.

 

The basis of the Times story is that, when Sanders entered the race, he didn't expect to win or even come close. His objective was instead to promote progressive ideas. Therefore, for several months after entering, he made decisions that were about influencing the national conversation rather than about being inaugurated on January 20. He continued to devote considerable time to his Senate work, which limited his campaigning, and he rejected the advice that he go after Clinton on such subjects as her emails and the Clinton Foundation. His rise in the polls, making him competitive, which surprised many people, surprised him as well. By that time, however, even though he was doing well, Clinton's full-time campaigning, coupled with her initial head start in name recognition, had put the nomination out of reach or nearly so.

On this view, the "what if" concerns Sanders's strategic choices in 2015. Suppose he had from the start aimed primarily at winning the nomination rather than at pressing his ideas. What if he had gone hard negative on Clinton? What if he had put more energy into the campaign, perhaps even resigning from the Senate? With the benefit of hindsight, one can say that this course might have enabled him to beat Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 02:40 PM

14. Sophisticated way of putting words in someone else's mouth.

Is there a term for that in the NYT Style Book?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #14)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 02:43 PM

15. It's called brocksplaining. An art used by

David 'Anita Hill is a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty' Brock to smear decent people. Supposedly he had seen the light but I think he just changed targets. For now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 02:55 PM

16. The NY Times That Suggested The "Fractivists" Are Pressuring Clinton AND Sanders

How much pressure can you put on a guy that said unequivocally that he opposed ALL fracking?

But that didn't stop the NYT from putting a headline suggesting as much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:02 PM

17. Bernie Sanders campaign is against the corrupt system

and all the practices contributing to it, while the Clintons want to take down individuals who want to change this system. They are willing to destroy individuals telling the truth and leave this corrupt system intact.

Sanders is aware of his words, and is taking ownership of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:03 PM

18. Meanwhile, the transcripts have still not been released...

...but somehow this story is about Sanders?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:04 PM

19. I thought we weren't supposed to cite right-wing sources in our OPs? [n/t]

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #19)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:07 PM

21. Very good point. Posts using that Brock "Blue Nation" website as a source should be deleted

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BernieforPres2016 (Reply #21)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:13 PM

22. Hey pssst... read the OP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #22)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:48 PM

32. I understand the OP was sarcastic

My comment wasn't on you, it was a comment on Brock and that pathetic website.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BernieforPres2016 (Reply #32)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:58 PM

33. And since he is posted so much on this site it is up to us to point out

what a worthless POS he is and his past history. His sleazy actions must never be forgotten.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #33)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 04:30 PM

35. I only see references to it in sarcasm threads like this one

I have all the Hillary people who would cite it as a source on Ignore. The only way I knew they were yapping about Bernie's tax returns as yesterday's meme was because of the rebuttal threads from Bernie supporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BernieforPres2016 (Reply #35)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 04:34 PM

36. That's why you don't see it. Wait until you encounter the sheepelsspew

a site owned by a banned DUer often cited here by some of the same people. That one is also a real piece of work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #36)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 04:45 PM

38. I saw that one this morning, the book length 10 questions about Bernie

From somebody new (to me) who went straight onto the Ignore list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BernieforPres2016 (Reply #21)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:20 PM

24. "Blue" = Establishment Democrat.

 

"Blue" does NOT = Liberal or Progressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #24)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 06:11 PM

55. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #55)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 06:54 PM

57. I think it was a very bad thing when the whole Blue State/Red State tribal identity meme

 

caught hold.

Far too many Democrats believe, to their core, that beating the Republicans is all that matters. For what it's worth, this meme was a particularly brilliant piece of propaganda for the Democratic Establishment. The Democrats can govern as poorly as they want without the yoke of accountability around their necks, and as long as they can whip up fear and loathing of their counterparts across the isle, the rank-and-file will chortle with glee.

What do you get for pretending the danger's not real?
Meek and obedient you follow the Leader
down well-trodden corridors
into the valley of steel...


- Pink Floyd "Sheep" from Animals (1977)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:05 PM

20. The Bluenation is a Clinton propaganda machine. She has the right to make money is b.s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:22 PM

25. They are his own words - how is this not relevant?

where is the joke?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robbedvoter (Reply #25)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:42 PM

29. Can you please point out Bernie's actual words please? I have asked others but no response

TIA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #29)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 05:10 PM

47. He is quoted in the except in the OP

Pre-mortem article is based on interviews with his wife, managers, surrogates. Considering the details - time place, shape of the table, I'd say this was someone who was present. The article is not a hatchet job - it's spin by his campaign to make him look good (her bad). That paragraph quoted was meant to tell us what a good guy he was. But you consider it a joke. Your choice. I am with Krugman who considers the whole thing a rehash of the smears http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/shadows-of-smears-past/?smid=tw-nytimeskrugman&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robbedvoter (Reply #47)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 05:25 PM

48. So Bernie actually didn't say it? Those are not his own words? Other people's words

attributed to Bernie by David 'Anita Hill is a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty' Brock?

I thought as much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:24 PM

26. The smell of Camp Weathervane flop sweat is in the air eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:46 PM

30. Much to Brock's dismay that actually speaks highly of Sanders character

 

If Bernie doesn't like to get negative (even on that mild "release the transcripts" is proof that he is decent and has integrity and character.

Not that he can't be tough...He is certainly capable of that when needed.

But better this than the "business as usual slime" that certain otehr campaigns indulge in. Right David?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:47 PM

31. There is a stunner. It's stunning the lengths to which BNR will take its pro-Clinton distortions.

 

As others have noted, the Times story doesn't remotely come close to saying what Brock's minions claim it says.

Here are some passages from the story in the Times that are conveniently overlooked in BNR's hit piece on Sanders on behalf of Clinton:

* Sanders "gave her a pass on her use of private email as secretary of state, even though some allies wanted him to exploit it." Later on the article refers to his famous debate comment, "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails."

* An assessment from a Clinton supporter who, unlike Brock, has some integrity:

Bob Kerrey, a former Nebraska governor and senator who ran for the Democratic nomination in 1992 and who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton in the current race, said Mr. Sanders might be winning now if he had relentlessly pressured Mrs. Clinton since last fall over her closed-door speeches to Wall Street banks, her role in the finances of Clinton Foundation programs, and other vulnerabilities. Mr. Sanders did not raise the paid-speech issue, after long resistance, until late January.

“Making the transcripts of the Goldman speeches public would have been devastating” to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Kerrey said. “When the G.O.P. gets done telling the Clinton Global Initiative fund-raising and expense story, Bernie supporters will wonder why he didn’t do the same.”


* "Mr. Sanders is now putting forward tough arguments against Mrs. Clinton — over donations from people who work in the oil and gas industry, for example. But he repeatedly passed up chances to make these cases at his well-attended rallies and three televised debates last year as well as in media interviews when asked about his opponent."

BNR is fond of using the phrase "Wall Street dog whistle" to refer to any mention of Clinton's still-secret high-dollar speeches to the banksters. That was the basis of this BNR article: "Desperation? Bernie Goes Hard Negative on Hillary’s Integrity (and thus Obama’s)". Now, putting aside any of the substance of this issue, a "dog whistle" on one point cannot be stretched to constitute going "hard negative". This illustrates Kerrey's point that the Sanders campaign has been absolutely nothing like what the Republicans will engage in if Clinton is the nominee. To accuse Sanders of going "hard negative" is preposterous. To attempt to ascribe that smear to the New York Times or to Sanders himself is downright dishonest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #31)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 03:59 PM

34. Awesome. You should do that post as a stand alone OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 04:43 PM

37. great post. thanks. It's too bad Bernie gave in to making unsupported charges. I am disappointed


he has decided to go the Joseph McCarthy route.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bill USA (Reply #37)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 04:53 PM

40. It would be if anything that David 'Anita Hill is a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty' Brock

wrote in the article were true but as usual after a lifetime of lies and smears this one is a bullshit lie too.

Made up innuendos to be swallowed whole by those who don't actually read the article and see that the real stunner is that Bernie never said that he Considers His Campaign Strategy a ‘Character Assault’ on Hillary, that came out of David 'Anita Hill is a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty' Brock's fevered imagination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #40)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 05:06 PM

45. the quote from NYT article: "the sort of character assault he has long opposed."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton.html?_r=1


"They thought the speaking fees meshed with the senator’s message about Wall Street excess and a rigged America. But Mr. Sanders, hunched over a U-shaped conference table, rejected it as a personal attack on Mrs. Clinton’s income —[font size="+1"]the sort of character assault he has long opposed.[/font]"


[hr]

quoting the Blue Nation Review article: STUNNER: NYT Reports that Bernie Considers His Campaign Strategy a ‘Character Assault’ on Hillary

A New York Times story on why Bernie Sanders is losing to Hillary Clinton contains a major admission: Bernie’s ‘release the transcripts’ attack line is [font size="+1"]“the sort of character assault he has long opposed.”[/font]



can you say: "identical"


NOTE: It helps if you read the article they were referring to in the Times.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 04:51 PM

39. Do you think it helps to post the Brock shit before the Clintonistas do?

 

And to use Brock's offensively wrong headline?

What's the point? Why add to the noise? I mean, you know this shit will be posted anyway...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #39)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 04:54 PM

41. It already has been posted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #41)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 05:32 PM

49. So if you want to counteract it, please allow me some tips:

 

1) Don't reproduce the offensively false headline from Brock. Recall that headlines are often up to 90% of the game. People confuse them with theses and often remember only the headline. Brock, Rove and their ilk know this well. So do newspaper editors who reporters' spin stories away from their meaning just with the right adjective etc.

2) A counter-thread with a clear and different headline (something like: Response to Clinton operative Brock's lie about New York Times interview today) is probably better than engaging within the pro-Brock OP and helping to keep that visible. That much is true.

Just suggestions, but look at what the Brockists on site are doing. They put out these threads with outrageously false headlines and then allow the criticisms to flood in and keep it kicked. Every time you look at this board, several completely fabricated Brock-style lies about Sanders are headlined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #49)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 05:45 PM

52. And in this thread everybody can respond and call out the brockshit for what it is.

Lies. smears and innuendos.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 04:54 PM

42. The Obama campaign slogan "Change We Can Believe In" was crafted to highlight the contrast

on character between Obama and Hillary. It was crafted in part by Joel Benenson who now works for Hillary and probably still believes due to polling data that character is her biggest liability. Now he is on defense but when he worked for Obama...

The only way for Obama to win this argument about change was for him to raise the character issue, which he had tiptoed around until that point in the campaign. Benenson’s polling showed that voters wanted a President “who can unite the country and restore our sense of common purpose,” “stand up to lobbyists,” and “who doesn’t just tell people what they want to hear.” The strategists, addressing Obama, wrote that these qualities “are the ones on which YOU scores high and Hillary, low.” They concluded, “Barack Obama is change. She is not.”

The next section was headlined, “The Fault Line: Hillary’s the Problem, Not the Answer,” and the strategists laid out the case against Clinton in stark terms, explaining that everything in Obama’s campaign, including his slogan—“Change you can believe in”—was meant to provide a contrast with Hillary, not on policy, but on character:

“Change you can believe in” was intended to frame the argument along the character fault line, and this is where we can and must win this fight. We cannot let Clinton especially blur the lines on who is the genuine agent of change in this election.

• The reason Clinton can’t be trusted or believed when it comes to change is that she represents, to a great degree, the three sources of discontent formulated in our premise.
• She’s driven by political calculation not conviction, regularly backing away and shifting positions on issues ranging from war, to Social Security, to trade, to reform.
• She embodies trench warfare vs. Republicans, and is consumed with beating them rather than unifying the country and building consensus to get things done.
• She prides herself on working the system, not changing it—rebuffing reforms on everything from lobbyist donations to budget earmarks.


http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-to-beat-hillary-clinton

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreatGazoo (Reply #42)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 04:56 PM

43. That is fascinating I had no idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #43)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 05:43 PM

51. I didn't know either but found that article after Benenson was on cable news

back in February and voiced their campaign's odd claim that 'Sanders was running the most negative campaign ever.' (?!)

I am fascinated by marketing and strategies so I tried researching why the Clinton campaign was taking this direction, pushing this idea. And that article "How to Beat Hillary Clinton" doesn't answer on why that but it provides clues. My own take is that Benenson and others in the campaign believe 2 things strongly:

- Clinton does well, perhaps best, when under attack. In screenwriting they tell you "put the hero in trouble early" because it sucks the audience in right away and the bad guy defines the good guy. Opening of Star Wars was a little ship being chased and attacked by a big ship. Darth Vader is on screen before any of the heroes. So for the Clinton campaign, Trump is playing Darth Vader in effect. He is the shark in the movie "Jaws" and the Miss Gulch in "The Wizard of Oz." His hateful, unpresidential, sexist, egotistical, bankruptcies in the casino business all help cast Hillary as dragon slayer. (But then in walks this mystical white haired Sanders dude and it is a whole different movie and HE is the dragon slayer...)

- It hurts a campaign to attack the other candidate on character. I read that in the Obama strategies of that article. And on its face, such an attack takes you off message. It tries to sell a negative -- just because they can't trust the other candidate doesn't mean they can trust you especially if you just threw a bunch of mud. Sanders is all message, his stump and his answers don't vary so Camp Clinton can't wait any longer for him to give them anything to work with. They so need to be attacked that Clinton went right for that Greenpeace camera with her line. That she restarts the line is a tell that it may have been scripted and waiting for such an opening -- "I'm so sick, (changes hands...restarts) I'm so sick of the Sanders campaign...." It is like they couldn't wait for any Sanders person, supporter, surrogate, etc to give them fodder so they just used Greenpeace to try again and create this narrative.

Unfortunately for Benenson's new employer, what worked for Obama against Hillary is not going to work for her against Sanders. Sanders is no Clinton and Obama's donor have made their choice:



Sanders is CLEARLY more about change than Hillary. In some ways "A Future to Believe In" is a re-work of "Change We Can Believe In" but it implies that any opponent Sanders faces is not only less trustable but also more about the past than the future. It works against Clinton or Trump. The past future contrast is right there when you line up Bernie slogan with Trump's -- "Make America Great Again"


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreatGazoo (Reply #51)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 08:05 PM

60. great posts, thanks!! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 05:02 PM

44. Sorry NYT Bernie does not need the transcripts. We the

people do in order to determine what the relationship between Hillary and her Wall Street donor is. This is not more dirty politics than asking a candidate to reveal their tax returns.

Poor Hillary. She wants a coronation and is unwilling to answer the questions of the people. Without answers we are not going to vote for her.

Has nothing to do with Bernie - we can and do think for ourselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 06:06 PM

54. Brock: the gun-controller who hired armed bodyguards.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread