Frank Rich: "Mrs. Clinton’s shrill campaign continues to cast her as Nixon to Mr. Obama's Kennedy"

[ClarkUSA]

... Washington is nothing if not consistent in misreading this election. Even as pundits overstated the significance of “Faith in America,”
so they misunderstood and trivialized the other faith-based political show unfolding this holiday season, “Oprahpalooza.” And with the
same faulty logic... Most could only see Oprah Winfrey’s contribution to Barack Obama’s campaign as just another celebrity endorsement,
however high-powered. The Boss, we kept being reminded, couldn’t elect John Kerry. Selling presidents is not the same as pushing “Anna
Karenina.” In a typical instance of tone-deafness from the Clinton camp, its national co-chairman, the former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack,
said of Oprah, “I’m not sure who watches her.”

Wanna bet he knows now? Even before Oprah drew throngs in Iowa, the Des Moines Register poll showed Mr. Obama leading Hillary Clinton
among women for the first time (31 to 26 percent) in late November. Now his surge is spreading. In New Hampshire, the Rasmussen poll
after Oprah’s visit found that the Clinton lead among women had fallen from 14 to 4 percent in just two weeks. In South Carolina, where
some once thought Mr. Obama was not “black enough” to peel away loyal African-American voters from the Clintons, he’s ahead by double
digits among blacks in four polls. (A month ago they were even among African-Americans in that state.) Over all, the Obama-Clinton race
in all three states has now become too close to call... But the New York Times/CBS News poll probably was right when it found that only 1
percent of voters say they will vote as Oprah asks them to. Her audience isn’t a pack of Stepford wives, and the message of the events she
shared with Mr. Obama is not that her fame translates directly into support for her candidate.

What the communal fervor in these three very different states showed instead was that Oprah doesn’t have to ask for these votes. Many
were already in the bag. Mr. Obama was drawing huge crowds before she bumped them up further. For all their eagerness to see a media
star (and star candidate), many in attendance also came to party. They were celebrating and ratifying a movement that Mr. Obama has
been building for months... Five years ago, Christianity Today, the evangelical journal founded by Billy Graham, approvingly described
Oprah as “an icon of church-free spirituality” whose convictions “cannot simply be dismissed as superficial civil religion or so much
New Age psychobabble.”

“Church free” is the key. This country has had its fill of often hypocritical family-values politicians dictating what is and is not acceptable
religious and moral practice. Instead of handing down tablets of what constitutes faith in America, Romney-style, the Oprah-Obama
movement practices an American form of ecumenicalism. It preaches a bit of heaven on earth in the form of a unified, live-and-let-live
democracy that is greater than the sum of its countless disparate denominations. The pitch — or, to those who are not fans, the shtick —
may be corny. “The audacity of hope” is corny too. But corn is preferable to holier-than-thou, and not just in Iowa... When I wrote here
two weeks ago that racism is the dog that hasn’t barked in this campaign, some readers wrote in to say that only a fool would believe
that white Americans would ever elect an African-American president, no matter what polls indicate. We’ll find out soon enough... I’d
argue instead that any sizable racist anti-Obama vote will be concentrated in states that no Democrat would carry in the general
election. Otherwise, race may be either a neutral or positive factor for the Obama campaign. Check out the composition of Oprah’s
television flock, which, like all daytime audiences, is largely female. Her viewers are overwhelmingly white (some 80 percent), blue
collar (nearly half with incomes under $40,000) and older (50-plus). This is hardly the chardonnay-sipping, NPR-addicted, bicoastal
hipster crowd that many assume to be Mr. Obama’s largest white constituency. They share the profile of Clinton Democrats — and of
some Republicans too... Is Mr. Obama gaining votes over rivals with often interchangeable views because some white voters feel better
about themselves if they vote for an African-American? Or is it because Mrs. Clinton’s shrill campaign continues to cast her as Nixon
to Mr. Obama’s Kennedy? Even after she apologized to Mr. Obama for a top adviser’s “unauthorized” invocation of Mr. Obama’s
long-admitted drug use as a young man, her chief strategist, Mark Penn, was apparently authorized to go on “Hardball” to sleazily
insinuate the word “cocaine” into prime time again. Somewhere Tricky Dick is laughing... Just when you think the tone can’t get any
uglier, it does... For those Americans looking for the most unambiguous way to repudiate politicians who are trying to divide the
country by faith, ethnicity, sexuality and race, Mr. Obama is nothing if not the most direct shot. After hearing someone like Mitt
Romney preach his narrow, exclusionist idea of “Faith in America,” some Americans may simply see a vote for Mr. Obama as a
vote for faith in America itself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16rich.html

"Let's dream anew of America again." ~ Oprah Winfrey in Des Moines, Iowa

[aquart]

1. Any of the men called "shrill"?

Although I gotta admit that "I'm not sure who watches her" is a stupid, condescending remark. Made by a man?

As for "sleazily insinuate," well, what else can a supporter say about something that can't be denied? It happened so no one should ever bring it up? Didn't we go thru that with Bush's prior drug use and his TANG record? What pisses Obama supporters most, I guess, is that they can't find a witness who ever saw Hillary take a toke or a line. And I'm sure they aren't looking for one.

And if such a person were ever found, I am SURE that person would not be interviewed by every reporter in the country after patriotically coming forward all on his own.

[hayu_lol]

2. There is certainly nothing 'shrill' about Hillary's speaking style/pitch...

but when you can connect shrill with woman, then it is a sexist remark big time.

As noted by many here, the Hillary Haters do not want a woman running the country.

That is sheer nonsense. Women have been running the county for almost 400 years. It is time to put the crap away.

[Joe the Revelator]

60. Once again, Team Hillary shoots down valid criticism with shouts of sexism.....

Yep, lets not use the english language properly. Shrill is Shrill, and Hillary's voice is nothing if not shrill. You're entire argument is tired and deflective.

[MissDeeds]

64. Agreed

I knew it would happen but didn't know it would happen so soon in the thread. Jesus. Does each and every word and descriptive phrase have to be vetted for possible sexism?

[proudmoddemo]

69. Don't you get it

If you criticize Hillary and her idiotic campaign, you're a sexist. Because this is "her time," and we should all just fall in line. ;)

[MissDeeds]

78. Gotcha

:toast:

[proudmoddemo]

68. Your buddies at the DLC call Edwards Shrill n/t

[bluestateguy]

3. Upper East Side cocktail party nonsense

Typical Pop Political Science for the uninformed...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. His Expertise Is In Reviewing Plays

I love the New York Times but I realize it is the voice of the coastal elite...

[against all enemies]

70. With that comment you have lost all credibility.

If Rich is just a "play reviewer" I guess Hillary is nothing more than a "first lady".

[JAbuchan08]

86. Have you ever been to Manhattan? That's Hillary country - for the uninformed

[Onlooker]

4. Shrill

Although I'm supporting Obama, it's the subtle sexism of the attacks that keeps me open to changing my support.

[Joe the Revelator]

61. Using the english language properly is not sexism.

I'm sorry that you think it is, but Hillary being described as "shrill" has nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with the tone of her voice.

[Onlooker]

65. Funny how only woman are judged by the tone n/t

[JAbuchan08]

87. I judge Bush by his tone all the time

In fact he has one thing in common with Hillary "tonally" that is condescension.

[Kucinich4America]

5. So does this mean Hillary is a crook?

:hide:

[cali]

6. what an unreadable piece

I'm normally a FR enthusiast, but this piece isn't up to snuff. And I'm sickened by the constant application of the words "shrill" to Clinton. Sexism reigns.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

44. Cali, you put perfectly into words my reaction, as well.

Mr. Rich disappoints with this piece. He should go back to artfully eviscerating the Bush administration. MKJ

[Andromeda]

7. What a sexist piece.

The word shrill is applied to Hillary but not to any of the men. Hmmmmm, wonder why?

Oh, and MSNBC's David Schuster mentioned Hillary's "cackle" right after the last debate which I thought was interesting. I don't remember any of the men's laughs being described as a cackle.

[KittyWampus]

17. Edwards is "Angry" not shrill. And "Shrill" is not exclusive to women.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. "Shrill" Is A Word Applied To Women By Men Who Can't Get Laid

~

[KittyWampus]

19. No, you're wrong. I just googled "shrill" lot's of applications to men and asexual groups

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. I Think You Missed The Intent Of My Post

Men who refer to women in terms they find unflattering will often find themselves literally left to their own devices for sexual release...

[greeneyedboy]

88. exactly. love Frank Rich, not a big Clinton fan, but "shrill" is a low blow. n/t

[Nimrod2005]

10. k

[babylonsister]

11. You people crack me up; Rich said her campaign was shrill, not Clinton.

What exactly didn't you like about this article? That he applauds Oprah and Obama and their 'inclusiveness' campaign? Are we now Frank Rich haters because he tells the truth about how the use of religion in other rethug camps appears to be backfiring? Is it because he claims race won't be an issue, judging from the high numbers Obama is getting?
This is far from a sexist piece, and you need to read it thoroughly to 'get' it. It's too bad it's not praise-worthy of Clinton, but that's the way it is. And I recommend it.

[jefferson_dem]

28. Awww... What a load of petty reactionary whining by this bunch..

Hillary is their candidate. They must live with the reality. Her campaign has embarrassed and shamed itself...and her...at the very least. I guess anyone who points that out will be labeled everything under the sun from here on out.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. When Did It Become Reactionary?

When did it become reactionary to object to the sexist obsession with specifying a woman's marital status ?

Does a man become anything other than Mr. when he marries?


I am appalled at Mr. Rich's ham handed and loutish sexism...

[babylonsister]

99. I'm trying really hard to not pick on anyone unless opinions are requested.

I want to concentrate on the positive. If I can.

[earthlover]

12. Shrill is not the best word to describe the Hillary campaign...more like condescending... arrogant

I dare say if the obama campaign was shrill, who would seriously believe the Hillary camp would not call Obama on it? Come on. You'd call Obama shrill in a heart beat! After all, you called him irresponsible and frankly naive....The sense of entitlement in Hillary World is off-putting.

[Cha]

92. Give it

time.

[denem]

13. "Mrs. Clinton" - that gives the game away. Sexism.

Senator Clinton, I think it is.

[babylonsister]

14. Do tell; when did she stop being a "Mrs."? That is lame. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Informed Folks Haven't Used "Mrs." As A Salutation In Nearly Forty Years

The term suggests a woman is possession or chattel of her husband ...

[babylonsister]

16. Lighten up, Frances. I hear * called Mr. all the time. Why the

double standard? I guess there really is very little to pick apart in this article if this is what you're concentrating on.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Mr. And Ms. Is Gender Netral Language

It's not my fault that Frank Rich is an insensitive and sexist lout ... Oh my name isn't Frances...

[babylonsister]

25. And had this article been pro-Clinton, you'd be whooping it up. As it

is, you're grasping at straws. Don't shoot the messenger.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. I Am Defending Feminist , Progressive Principles

I'm dismayed you aren't joining me...

[babylonsister]

29. No, you're making mountains out of molehills. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. Opposing Sexism Is Not A Trivial Matter

I am dismayed that you think it is...

[babylonsister]

37. I'm dismayed you're dismayed, but why don't you comment on any

other points in the article? First it was the word 'shrill', now it's the word 'Mrs.'. If those are your major problems with it, you got nothing. This isn't about sexism at all, it's about the content of the article that you so strenuously disagree with. By bashing Rich, you're hoping people will see those two words and ignore the rest.

So I'm dismayed in you...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Once Someone Uses Racist Or Sexist Imagery I Don't Give Any Credence To What They Say

I am dismayed you aren't joining me in denunciation of such imagery...

[babylonsister]

42. Gimme a break; you just don't want to face the real issues addressed

in Rich's piece. If you don't give him any credence, why are you belaboring the point?
How many words in that article, and you zero in on two? Your motives are showing...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. I Just Strenuously Object To The Use Of Sexist Imagery

I am dismayed you feel sexist imagery is acceptable when the target is someone you dislike.

[babylonsister]

47. Hahaha! You're like a broken record! nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. I Am Dismayed That You Find Sexist Imagery Funny

~

[Laurab]

97. Really!

I couldn't be any more dismayed that you're doing so much dismaying, you dismayer, you.

Apparently the rules have changed, Mrs. Hillary Clinton should now be called Ms., and "shrill" is not to be used in any way to describe her campaign, or people get all dismayed about it and stuff!

Of course, if you do call her Ms. Clinton, the rules will probably have been changed again - it does get pretty damn dismaying....I'm one of the ones who never gets the memos that tell you this stuff....

[jefferson_dem]

50. Her own White House web page refers to her as "Mrs. Hillary Clinton."

Is this not the proper way to refer to former (and current) first "ladies"? Perhaps you find that term offensive as well.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/firstladies/hc42.html

There are many more examples here -- http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-40,GGLJ:en&q=mrs%2e+clinton+

Sorry, my impression is that you object to the column more because it's your preferred candidate that's being lambasted rather than because she is referred with a term you supposedly find offensive.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. I Am Disappointed That The White House Still Uses Language More Suitable To The 1950's

I am dismayed that you are suggesting that my aversion to use of the word "Mrs." is insincere... I would think before one made that accusation they would have some evidence that I found the word acceptable in other instances but not in this one...

[jefferson_dem]

55. DSB -

To clarify: I generally respect your contributions here and do not think you are being insincere. My point is that, in my opinion, your outrage is misdirected in this instance.

[Evergreen Emerald]

56. Of course you are correct DSB

The article is a superficial mess of innuendo topped with the sexist "shrill" comment that made me want to cringe.

I am reminded of the republicans who are attacking the Nobel Piece Prize rather than admit that it is an awesome honor to Gore.

The Obama supporters here cannot stop. They are constantly attacking. "Clinton bought the stupid nonsensical endorsement given by three women." Yet, the Boston endorsement, now that is the real thing. No question as to the gender or race of the editors. Not question of the process of the endorsement.

The credibility of these individuals has become non-existent as they continue to deny and attack anything Clinton.

The media has attacked Clinton for a decade. It is nothing new. SHRILL is a sexist statement, no matter how many people attempt to deny it. But to sleep with the media enemy because it suits their candidate for the moment is dangerous: as they will turn on the democrats once the general starts.

[babylonsister]

52. Isn't that interesting-thanks for looking it up. I wonder how this will be

spun? :freak:

[high density]

90. It's a standard

The first reference is President Bush. Further references are Mr. Bush. I would imagine the same thing applies to senators. And I refuse to see how Mrs. (she is married AFAIK) is fucking sexist.

[KittyWampus]

23. WTF? Most people I know use Mrs. And I work with fairly well-off people extensively.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Being Well Off Is Not Synonymous With Having Progressive And Feminist Values

~

[KittyWampus]

59. I live in NY in a solidly liberal area.

Social liberals at the very least.

[bunnies]

34. What?!

Im seriously scratching my head here. Does that mean every teacher I ever had was seriously uninformed? I mean... I've heard Mr. & Mrs. used all my life and Im less than 40 years old.

What is the PC term to use then... say, for a child addressing an adult? Is there an alternative that I dont know about?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. Ms.

Does a man become anything other than Mr. when he weds...

[bunnies]

36. ah. ok. Ill go with that.

Didnt even occur to me. I havent had my coffee yet. :)

[sniffa]

38. what tripe

maybe in herstory classes the womyn do that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. " It is interesting who wants gender neutral language and who doesn't."

When you google the word "Miss," the first page includes entries such as Miss Universe, Miss World, Miss America, Miss 60, Miss Saigon…yet when you google "Mrs." Or "Ms.," you do not get any beauty pageant entries at all. As a matter of fact, instead of Miss Universe, you get Mrs. Field's cookies! At a right-wing Christian website called "Fathers for Life," a writer laments, "You can not refer to a woman by the color of her hair. You can not use Mrs. Or Miss. The indistinguishable Ms. is to replace both." It is interesting who wants gender neutral language and who doesn't. And why.



http://users.resist.ca/~kirstena/pagemissmsmrs.html

[KittyWampus]

22. Well, MRS. Clinton sure likes using her HUSBAND MR. Clinton, doesn't she? MR. Clinton

wines and dines the editorial staff of the Des Moines Register, for instance.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. Again With The Mrs.

It's sad that people will so readily disavow any progressive, femininist principles as long as in their disavowal they can disrespect someone they don't like...

I'm watching an interview with the editor/vice president of the Des Moines Registeron C-Span...She just said Michelle Obama lobbied them heavily on her husband's behalf...

[RufusTFirefly]

46. Blame the New York Times Copy Desk, not Rich

People who understand how newspapers work know that the use of "Mr." and "Mrs." is almost always a part of a newspaper's "house style" and not a decision that Frank Rich made.

As for "shrill," Mr. Rich's colleague Paul Krugman gets called that all the time.

Rich's points obviously struck a nerve, which is why there's been such an effort by some people here to draw attention away from the substance of the article. Pretty transparent really. And pathetic.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. He's An Editorialist Not A Reporter

And the use of the word "Ms." is commonly accepted, ergo:


Ms., or Ms (UK usage), (pronounced ) is an English honorific used with the last name or full name of a woman. Ms., like Mrs. and Miss, is a contraction of the honorific "Mistress," which is the feminine of "Mister" or "Master." However, unlike Miss and Mrs., it does not presume the addressee's marital status. Ms. originated in the United States and was popularized in the 1970s. It is now the default form of address for business correspondence with a woman.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms.

Oh, I think it's pathetic that other people would think it's pathetic to defend feminist/progressive principles and reject sexist imagery...

[RufusTFirefly]

66. Commonly accepted? Not in the Times, it's not

This is ironic on many levels. I almost never (if ever) refer to someone as "Mrs." for precisely the reasons you've explained. But I am able to understand the concept of "house style." I repeat: Your beef is with the Times' Copy Desk, not Rich.

Do a search on columns by Krugman, Friedman, and Dowd. You will find that Clinton is referred to as "Mrs." in each case. So your distinction between news and opinion style is irrelevant. As for "Ms. Clinton"? That's the second reference the Times Copy Desk uses for Chelsea Clinton.

Continuing the irony, I wouldn't think of referring to an adult I don't know by her or his first name. And I would never call a growunup woman a "girl." And yet, Senator Clinton's Web site refers to her as "Hillary" and she herself stated "I'm your girl."

As an illustration of pervasive gender bias, your point is valid, but in the context of this argument and Rich's column, it's a total red herring. You are obviously trying to draw attention away from Rich's stinging allegations.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. Two Points

Referring to a woman as "Mrs." reinforces patriachal values and it doesn't become accetapble because the term is apllied to someone we don't like...

I don't have a problem with a man or woman being known almost exclusively by their first name...Ever heard of Shaq, Rocky, Cher, Madonnna, The Babe?

[RufusTFirefly]

All your points miss THE point.

Deliberately, I'm sure.

[LittleBlue]

91. Mrs. is still proper English, and still used in British English today

Even among the most liberal papers. The Guardian for example. Even so, even in the most formal business settings Ms. and Mr. are used exclusively.

[Bitwit1234]

20. What an absolute crock of crap. Obama couldn't be

compared to be fit to wipe the ass of John F. Kennedy and to have the low down dirty spew to say he is compared to Kennedy. Somebody jumping on and down on a stage, wants to bomb a country because of bush's lies, doesn't vote for bills that would help veterans is the emptiest empty suit I have ever seen. And the leash Obama is pulling him around on is getting tighter and tighter. What I would like to know is, just what in the hell does she think she will get out of this.

She voted for bush twice and all of a sudden she wants to support some democrat.

[sniffa]

49. i wish i could recommend your post

it's that good.

you should make this its own thread so we can get it to the greatest page.

[babylonsister]

54. ...

[Laurab]

98. I wish I could come across just one of your posts

that made any sense at all to me.

She did, did she? Are you referring to Frank Rich?

[Evergreen Emerald]

21. Dang: Rich just exposed himself

That is a sexist, inaccurate statement. Too ugly. America is not ready for a woman leader. Dang, we are so stupid as a group. The rest of the world is right.

[jefferson_dem]

24. Excellent piece by "Mr. Rich."

Wailing and gnashing of teeth above notwithstanding.

:kick: and rec.

[sniffa]

32. i heard it was unreadable

[Vinca]

43. Hillary's got this odd, ponderous speaking style that can seem

demeaning. It's as if she's talking to a roomful of special needs people. To her credit, she's getting better as she goes along, but sometimes she's like a robot with a fading battery. I don't find her especially shrill, but she occasionally comes across as trying to out macho the male candidates. Whatever she is, it's not inspirational.

[cmkramer]

57. They said the same thing about Al Gore

Funny how leftwingers keep parroting rightwing memes when it suits their purposes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. They Said Al Gore Addressed His Fellow Americans As If He Was Addressing Five Years Old

~

[Vinca]

73. What if it's our true opinion of her speaking style?

One reason I'm a Democrat is that we're not expected to walk in lock step.

[Elspeth]

62. Shrill is an anti-female slur. Frank Rich needs to check his balls at the door and use his brain

if he can.

[suston96]

63. "Mrs. Clinton’s shrill campaign continues to cast her as Nixon to Mr. Obama's Kennedy"

Nixon-Kennedy? 1960? Uh, I remember that campaign. But for the workings of the Daly machine in Chicago, Illinois - Kennedy would have lost that election. No one knows why he won Illinois, except that Daly machine.

Oh, and one more thing. Hillary Clinton has to watch her make-up and the lighting on any staged appearance. Nixon lost that critical debate with Kennedy in 1960 - which I watched - based not on the content of the debate but on how he, Nixon looked on TV. People who heard the debate on radio said Nixon clearly won the debate.

[last_texas_dem]

72. But Kennedy would still have carried the electoral vote

even if IL had gone to Nixon.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=1960

[suston96]

75. Good catch. So the math seems to say......

...there must be a reason why I remember that the Illinois electorals were so critical.

On edit: Yeah, here ya go. Lyndon Johnson, the Vice-President nominee, carried Texas for his ticket.

http://www.slate.com/id/91350/

Was Nixon Robbed?The legend of the stolen 1960 presidential election.
By David Greenberg
Posted Monday, Oct. 16, 2000, at 9:30 PM ET
John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon

"You gotta swallow this one," says a Republican hack in Oliver Stone's Nixon, referring to the 1960 election, in which John F. Kennedy prevailed. "They stole it fair and square."

That Richard Nixon was cheated out of the presidency in 1960 has become almost an accepted fact. You've probably heard the allegations: Kennedy's operatives fixed the tallies in Texas and Illinois, giving him those states' 51 electoral votes and a majority in the Electoral College. Fearing that to question the results would harm the country, Nixon checked his pride and declined to mount a challenge.

The story is rich in irony: The much-hated Nixon, later driven from the presidency for cheating in an election, puts country before personal gain. The beloved Kennedy, waltzing through life, pulls off the political crime of the century. Nixon's defenders like the story because it diminishes Watergate. His detractors like it since it allows them to appear less than knee-jerk—magnanimously crediting Nixon with noble behavior

[last_texas_dem]

79. Interesting article; thanks for posting

It sounds like there were a number of close states that could have possibly had some questionable practices going on on both sides. I kind of question whether LBJ would have been able to swing 50,000 votes in favor of Kennedy in the Texas-Mexico border counties w/o it being totally obvious that something fishy had gone down. I think in his 1948 Senate race, LBJ managed to win by just a swing of a few hundred suspicious votes. But I don't know; I know he was a very powerful politician.

[MethuenProgressive]

67. Obama should apologize for his surrogate's sexist attack.

More negativity from ObamaNation.

[SIMPLYB1980]

74. Yes he should, but will he?

[last_texas_dem]

81. Why would a candidate apologize for what a newspaper editorial writer

says about one of his or her opponents? Unless Frank Rich is on the Obama campaign's payroll, the idea that Obama should apologize is pretty ridiculous.

[Hieronymus]

76. I have to go along with Mr. Rich. Hillary's goon squad, and many of

her supporters have sunk her chances.

[antiimperialist]

77. Frank Rich hates the Clintons and Gore, for some reason

does anyone know why?

[ClarkUSA]

80. Stop the whining! Playing the "hate" card is as tiresome a red herring as the "sexism" card.

Criticism only counts as "hate" in Hillaryworld. In the real world, Frank Rich always makes sense. Frankly, during 1999-2000, Gore made mistakes
and in 2007, the Clinton campaign is making them, too.

Deal with it.

[SIMPLYB1980]

82. Thats funny considering all the whining you do on here everyday.

[ClarkUSA]

84. That's all you've got, Hillaryworlder? I contribute more than ad hominem attacks, unlike you.

And I never whine, unlike the vast majority of Hillaryworld, nor do I play the any lame victim card like you guys do.

But I expect so little from a Kool-Aide supporter of an amoral swift boating politically expedient hypocrite like Hillary
so keep on posting your BS one-liners accompanied by suck-up pictures of your idol.

[SIMPLYB1980]

93. WTF ever.

This whole forum has gone to shit since the primaries really got rolling. People like you and others spreading hatred all over the place it's disgusting. What's the point of having a rational discussion with people who act like children? People like you have brought this place to a new low, It's sad really. This used to be a place I came to for thoughtful conversation, and as a refuge from all the hate I've had to deal with were I live. 6 years ago I was speaking out against this war, all my friends laughed at me, the people I worked with thought I was crazy, but I could come here and find hard information to show to them which brought most of them to see the TRUTH about Iraq, and the people they voted for. Just my small contribution to our democracy. Sadly this place no longer represents that to me. Even the good posts which make valid points get immediately shit on, by all sides. Hopefully after the primaries this place will get it's shit straight, and if you are still around I'll gladly apologise, but for now I'm to fed up to care.

[ClarkUSA]

94. If you want rational discussion with me, try not insulting me as a conversation starter.

Because if you do, I guarantee you you will get it back in spades. People like you are the ones who've brought this place to a new low. You attacked
me first so you're crying foul is a bit disingenuous. I have been here for many years and I went through this same BS cycle in 2003-4 when I
supported Wes Clark. I reflect back what I get, so I'm up for discussion if you are.

[SIMPLYB1980]

100. How can we have a rational discussion

about hate and sexism when you say. "Stop the whining! Playing the "hate" card is as tiresome a red herring as the "sexism" card." Thats just ridiculous. You ignore the obvious fact that their is much hate and sexism aimed at Senator Clinton, and you degrade those who see it as whiners. Who really attacked first? I didn't have anything to say to you until you called me, and a hell of a lot of other people whiners for calling out hatred, and sexism when we see it.

[JamesA1102]

83. Rich is a liar

Always has been. He and Dowd spent 1999 and 2000 trashing Al Gore. Neither can be trusted.

[ClarkUSA]

85. Give examples of when Rich was a "liar" because I think you're full of Hillaryworld BS

As for criticism, plenty of people didn't like how Gore was running his campaign in 1999-2000, including Bill Clinton, many Democrats, and many Americans
like me. Only in Bushworld and Hillaryworld (the two are nearly identical in the way they demonize critics) would criticism be considered lying, hating, or
trashing. :eyes:

[ozone_man]

89. I liked it.

Especially this part:

“Church free” is the key. This country has had its fill of often hypocritical family-values politicians dictating what is and is not acceptable religious and moral practice. Instead of handing down tablets of what constitutes faith in America, Romney-style, the Oprah-Obama movement practices an American form of ecumenicalism. It preaches a bit of heaven on earth in the form of a unified, live-and-let-live democracy that is greater than the sum of its countless disparate denominations.

[ClarkUSA]

95. Thank you for seeing right through to the heart of Rich's message.

:toast:

[Major Hogwash]

96. Gawd dammit, Rich! You sexist! Haven't you talked to Krugman lately?

Hillary is the greatest thing to come down the pike since sliced bread!
Krugman sez so!

And we all know how smart that little fucker is!