"Some Democrats" now set their sights on Sen. Boxer

[beachmom]

I KNEW this would happen and it just did. You can read all about this feigned outrage non-issue launched by the White House (oh, yes, Snow got involved) that somehow Boxer had insulted Condi's singlehood and childless status on the Greatest Page. But here is a NY Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/washington/12cnd-rice.html?ei=5065&en=08c1ef9c52861b52&ex=1169269200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Of course, Condi, who was not offended at the time, suddenly became offended after reflecting on it. Boxer explains her position. It discusses all the RW blogs' outrage, who all suddenly are for feminism after being against it. And then there's this quote at the end of the article:

Some Democratic Senate staffers complained privately that Ms. Boxer’s exchange with Ms. Rice allowed the Bush administration to turn the tables on Iraq critics and sidestep the larger issue of the almost uniform opposition to the president’s new plan to send an additional 21,500 U.S. soldiers to Iraq.

(emphasis mine)

So who are these turncoats is what I'd like to know!
Perhaps the same ones who are always turning on Kerry every chance they get.

[Inuca]

1. Sure, Barbara Boxer the anti-feminist standard bearer

The whole thing is ridiculous. At least she did not offend the troops :sarcasm: ! It's beyond my comprehension how people in their right minds can fall for such nonsense. I was listening to the radio yesterday on my way back from work, a local station where I sometimes listen to Al Franken morphs after a while into another local station where Hannity is on (it's a long drive, as I am sure you can tell), so sometimes I listen to a surrealistic babble that combines both stations. Yesterday the Hannity station seemed to win for a while, so I listed to a woman that called to express her outrage at what Boxer did, how demeaning of women all over it is, and how everybody would have been in arms if a republican had said something similar, but because she is a democrat, everything is permitted. Are these people for real????

[MBS]

2. now that Benedict Lieberman is part of Bush's Iraq "Working Group"

he may also be a handy conduit for quotes from "some Democratic Senate staffers".
But I agree with you that , whatever the alleged "sources" for the undeserved slap at Boxer, they're at least an overlapping group with those who turn on Kerry (to use your apt words) "every chance they get".

I loved your post! "feigned outrage". . "suddenly became offended after reflecting on it". . "for feminism after being against it"! All perfect!

The more I read about Senate machinations, the more I can see how Kerry pays a price in popularity among the Beltway/Capitol Insiders for his principled stands on ethics reform, Iraq, Aliton, habeas corpus, and other issues.
Ditto other Senators who have the courage to do their job. Stand tall , Sen. Kerry (not too hard for you to do, of course :) ) and keep up the good work .

[beachmom]

4. Lieberman is an Independent now. I thought of that, but he really

is no longer a Democrat. His staffers cannot be factually labelled Democratic. Sorry my tin foil hat is on as far as those in our own party who want to undermine the liberal wing who wants troops out and surge funding cut off. I put this in GDP, and they don't seem to agree with me what's going on. But Kerry has been undermined one too many times by these Dems for me not to think that they found another opportunity to try to silence Senators who are more apt to state uncomfortable positions.

[MBS]

7. I actually had in mind that he'd be happy to pass on any gossip from others

. . though I would hope by now that he's so isolated from the Dems that he's now cut off from a lot of it, I would guess that he could still likely be in touch with some of them. Anyway, with or without Lieberman, I totally agree (which is what I tried to say, clumsily, in earlier post) that most of this s____ has to be coming from the same broad group, that is, the insiders, business-as-usual folks and that they are deliberately trying to silence any senators AND quash any prospective presidential candidates who state uncomfortable positions.

[sandnsea]

14. But they do call him a Democrat

I guess it's going to be up to us to insist he's called an Independent so that we can figure out where this shit is coming from. I would have preferred she didn't mention it either, but Laura Bush actually said Rice wouldn't run for President because she never married and had no family. WTF? If a man said something like that, he'd be eliminated for needing to have a family to hold his hand. Yet nobody says a word about Laura's ridiculous statements. Anyway, I don't know why 'some Democrats' don't stfu.

[Luftmensch067]

3. Since they're never identified

do we even know they exist?

[beachmom]

6. They NYT has an editorial mechanism, and certainly fact check

anonymous sources. Jayson Blair was a real embarrassment for them, so I don't think they would allow a blatant lie to be printed in their paper (post Judith Miller, too).

[MarjorieG]

28. Rosie on the View helped

By showing the actual interaction with Condi, tried to show how all the media spins and misguides. Let's say lies.

[karynnj]

5. I hate these anonymous sources

Here many of us were watching and Boxer's point was that neither she or Rice had a personal stake in the war. It is the echo chamber that made this about Rice being single - she could have said the same thing to a married woman or man in her own situation.

This is most similar to the Kerry thing in that she is accused of things that do not follow: The RW is saying that she is making an issue of Condi being single and that it means she's not qualified to be President.

What I resent is that if Hillary said this - those staffers would be 100% behind her.

[whometense]

15. I agree 100%.

"Some democrats" - bull. If someone has something to say they should be willing to stand behind it - if not, we should either ignore them or shoot them down.

I read an interesting take on this at Salon: http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/01/12/boxer/index.html

People weighed in on both sides, but I think it's appalling - it reminded me but exactly of the "Kerry's botched joke" nonsense. If you saw her saying it, it was completely clear what her point was - and it had nothing whatsoever to do with Condi being childless. In fact, she could have said the exact same words to Cheney. And to many others who might also have been sitting there.

They are doing to her what they did to JK - deliberately misunderstanding what she said.

And this comment is great: http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/01/12/boxer/index.html

Update #2: Broadsheet letter writers have pointed out an obvious connection that I failed to make above. All of the huffing and puffing from right-wing media about Boxer's observations that Rice doesn't have any immediate family in the military is pretty hilarious, considering that in December, First Lady Laura Bush told People magazine that Rice probably wouldn't run for president, in part because she is single and has no immediate family. "Dr. Rice, who I think would be a really good candidate , is not interested. Probably because she is single, her parents are no longer living, she's an only child. You need a very supportive family and supportive friends to have this job." So if Tony Snow was so ruffled by Boxer's comments yesterday that he called them "a great leap backward for feminism," how devastated must his feminist heart have been by the First Lady's earlier assertions?

[wisteria]

8. I have barely heard a whimper about this outside the blogs. of course, that might change

if they can create fake outrage and use it as a diversion to mask what is really going on.

This is just childish whining IMO. Condi is suppose to be a tough woman, you mean to tell me she can't take a little heat?

As for the "some democratic staffer", I am beginning to believe they really aren't any, and the media just creates them to serve a purpose and the purpose in this case is obvious.

One last thing, how ridiculous to suggest that people would be more outraged about what Senator Boxer said than this awful war.

[MH1]

9. NY Post, Fox...

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Video_Fox_bashes_Boxer_for_childless_0112.html

Check out the NY Post cover. :puke: (well the lower part...the top part of the cover isn't so bad...:evilgrin:)

Anyway, I think the whole point of this sham outrage is to create a diversion. It's one of the republicans' favorite tactics - smear and divert.

[wisteria]

10. I agree with you on the top part, the bottom half though, is just outrageous.

That this administration would still use these stupid games of he said she said, instead of addressing the seriousness of what we have created in Iraq, is beyond reckless. I bet Condi isn't losing any sleep over the comment- she has more important things to do. This Bush Presidency is truly one conducted in the tabloids and trash media. Our country deserves better than this sh*t.

[cadmium]

13. Condi is just too antisocial to care

Boxer did a fantastic job illustrating the human tragedy of the war.

[MBS]

16. I totally agree, and I think she made a very important and relevant point n/t

[Democrafty]

11. This is BS because Senator Boxer is on the record as wanting

to be a good representative of CA moms who have lost kids in Iraq. Remember when she introduced a bill to withdraw from Iraq, like, the day before she signed on to Kerry/Feingold? She said she was doing that because two military moms had asked her to.

Pretty much all of the MSM coverage of this hearing has pissed me off so far. It's essentially being reported that people who are against the surge either just want the president's job, or have some kind of petty issue with Condi. It's absurd.

[ProSense]

12. I can't believe that there is

anyone that stupid who isn't a wingnut; therefore, I must believe "some Democrats" is a mis-characterization of the source.

[blm]

17. This should be up for discussion in GD-P. The pattern is very clear to me.

Any time a centrist Dem can stick a shiv in the back of the more liberal Dems they do it and get coverage for it.

Murtha never attacked the troops. Kerry never insulted the troops. Dean did not lose congressional seats. And Boxer never insulted single women.

The Dems feigning outrage do it to push the left away as representative voices in the party. Period. It is their own form of swiftboating from within and it is despicable. The coverup Democrats want the anti-corruption, open government Democrats to disappear while they serve the establishment forces, protecting their secrecy and privilege.

[MBS]

18. you're exactly, totally right, blm n/t

[beachmom]

19. Actually, I did yesterday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3055090

A lot of people would rather believe the NYT just made it up (sorry, they're not the National Enquirer, and I doubt they made it up) than to believe Democrats (not Lieberman) would stab Boxer in the back. After what happened to Kerry (and it started with articles in the NYT with "some Democrats" ridiculing him) and the joke, I don't think it is particularly radical to assert that it's the same crowd trying to undermine Boxer, even at the expense of Democratic momentum this week. They don't care about that -- they only care about their end goal of power for themselves not furthering the progressive Democratic cause. And they most certainly do not want a debate over cutting off funding of either the troops surge or the whole war.

[blm]

20. Good - I found it. Thanks.

.

[Democrafty]

21. It's not at all radical

given how frequently JK and Senator Boxer have eachothers' backs on things.

[sandnsea]

22. It's very frustrating

It's the same with that Murdoch story on Obama, Begala and Carville framing Chavez as a populist, as well as this. The Clinton wing is very busy with the media and it's stunning to me how many people will deny it. It isn't all Clinton people either, some just don't understand the purpose of some of these media manipulations.

[MarjorieG]

27. Feigned outrage of change the subject

Just like the third debate that didn't go well for Bush, Mary Cheney feigned outrage at being outed, after spending her adult life as a professional lesbian planning not-so-kosher gay parties for Coors. She planned the outrage.

The SFRC wasn't going well, as the Senators managed to extract a lot of embarrassing moments for Condi. No Plan B, etc, so of course, another feigned outrage to grab the headlines away from Iraq disaster.

And, most assuredly, yes, Murdoch's coziness with Bill, to deliver for Hillary, I believe, as the least objectionable Democrat for corporate America. Bill also manuevered a lot of hawkish support before Iraq, and continuing, so all things considered, Bill at his best manipulative for himself.

When people say Bill won, and can win again, beyond the different competition and media, he wasn't skewered and sabotaged by the Democratic Party as much as Kerry.

As Newt said, Mr. Bush's 2.5 percentage point margin over Mr. Kerry was the smallest for a victorious incumbent president in U.S. history. I add, during wartime.

[saltpoint]

23. There's no question about it: Barbara Boxer is a cold-hearted

nihilist for whom the complete destruction of America holds primacy. She labors deep into the night to discover and implement new ways to subvert freedom. She hires terrorists to urinate on copies of the Constitution in her own living room. If anything anywhere goes wrong, you can bet she's behind it. The craven bitch!

:sarcasm:

'Had the chance to watch the Senate Foreign Relations Committee blow Condoleezza Rice out of the water during her recent testimony.

Dr. Rice is no match for any Democrat on that Committee, especially the foreign policy aces like our good man from Massachusetts, that Kerry fellow.

Dr. Rice is no match either for Chuck Hagel, who is way too conservative for my vote, but who nevertheless tied Condi up in a seamless bundle and tossed her out the window.

At least the hapless Bob Corker had enough sense to more or less abstain from the questioning.

I've volunteered for Barbara Boxer in brief sojourns to California, and would do it again in a heartbeat.

[whometense]

24. See last night's Daily Show?

Jon Stewart's attempted seduction of Condi to end the war??

Hilarious.

[saltpoint]

25. Hey there, whometense.

I missed the Daily Show, but caught some of what Stewart had to say from web sources.

I wonder how Condi's staff keeps these kinds of things away from her? Or if she finds them anyway and flies into a rage in the office?

It's not hard to picture.

[whometense]

26. Hi, Old Crusoe

It was soooooooo funny. Cheesy 70's porn music, red lights, the whole shebang, including a sex lecture...

Video: http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml

"Strangers with Condi" (great title, huh? :D)

[saltpoint]

29. Thanks for the link... I'll track it down.

Yes. It IS a great title.

I was thinking that Condi inspires a kind of twisted-but-engaging response. Maybe there should be a song called "All the Young Neocons Love Condi."

[beachmom]

31. Colbert also said his "offer" to Condi was still on the table.

God that was hilariousl!!!! Jon Stewart actually acted very well for that -- his eyes said everything . . . .

[saltpoint]

32. Colbert and Stewart are two people who truly know

what's what.

I love 'em.

As for the offer to Condi, well, she won't talk to the Iranians and the Syrians. So I don't know if Stephen or Jon will hear back from her...

[Inuca]

30. "hapless Corker"

I like that! Perfect description.

[saltpoint]

33. Hi, Inuca. Thanks. I couldn't help it. Harold Ford isn't as

progressive as I'd hope for in a Democratic Senate candidate, but he would have been a hell of a lot better than hapless Bob.

I guess I'm still pouting over Corker's win in Tennessee, and especially over that crappy, low-down tv ad that ran against Ford -- the one with the blond woman taunting, "Harold -- call me."

Kerry, Dodd, Feingold, Biden, Boxer -- that bunch -- really shone like the sun against Rice in those hearings.

[Inuca]

34. To give credit where credit is due...

...Hagel was not too shabby either.

[saltpoint]

35. You're right. Hagel must be a real thorn in Bush's side these days.

Hagel stands out because he's in approximately the same position Dick Lugar is -- both conservative, intelligent men from pretty red states -- but Lugar barely utters a peep against Bush, and Hagel is laying on the stripes.