The Entire Right Wing Noise Machine Has Known Only One Enemy Over It's Lifespan

[THUNDER HANDS]

Since the rise of Rush Limbaugh in the early 1990's the Right Wing Noise Machine (VRWC) has known only one enemy - Bill/Hillary Clinton.

Talk radio, cable news, magazines, books, websites, think tanks - they all rose to under the guise and unifying theme of destroying the first two-term Democratic administration since FDR.

The Clintons, collectively, are the only enemy face they know. Oh, they rail against the "liberal media" and "liberals" in general - but specifically, they are a cottage industry of Clinton hate.

And Clinton hate is the oxygen to their fire.

You've seen it over the past eight years. Since Bush has been in the office and has steadily shown himself to be a bumbling moron and corrosive disease to his own party - right wing radio has declined in ratings, FOXNEWS has declined in ratings, right wing book sales are down.

They have nothing to rail against. Nothing to focus their anger on.

The Right Wing, as a political wing of the Republican party, and as a cottage industry of political thought and opinion, needs Hillary Clinton to run in 2008.

Win or lose, they still win.

If she runs, they'll have their oxygen back. Their ratings will rise, their book sales will increase, their voters will be energized.

If she loses, great for them, they defeated the Clinton's one and for all.

If she wins, EVEN BETTER for them, they get another four, possibly eight, years of high ratings, high book sales, ect.

Clinton Hate Inc. will be back with a vengeance.

.

Now, this isn't meant to be a post saying don't nominate Hillary, she'll lose. Or don't nominate her because it would benefit this industry. Personally, I think if she's the nominee she'll beat them. She's done it before, I think she'll do it again.

It just means, to me, even more reason to vote for Obama. He'll depress their turnout, dry up their ratings, obliterate their book sales - and - AND - win the White House.

It would be a win-win for us, and a lose-lose for them.

Just another reason to vote for Obama.

[bidenista]

1. in all seriousness...

...are you insane?

These people will smear whoever the Dem is, if they win the presidency. If it's Obama, they'll have a whole load of new avenues to explore, and a new myth to create.

Don't imagine that they're suddenly going to dry up just because it's not Hillary. We could nominate Nelson Mandela himself* and they'd have 50% of the population calling him a foreign terrorist before his second month in office.

*=Well, technically we couldn't. But you get my point.

[THUNDER HANDS]

3. smearing is different than what they do to the Clintons

smearing is what they did to Kerry. Effectively, I might add, for two reasons - one, because he didn't respond to the swiftboaters for two weeks while he had no money... and two, because he made conflicting public statements that could be easily twisted against him.

Obama has run a much better, more disciplined campaign than Kerry has. On top of that, he is attracting Republicans and Independents in numbers that Kerry could have only dreamed of.

He's not going to go without attacks against him, nobody would - but all you have to do is listen to RW radio to realize that Hillary Clinton and her husband (and their hatred of them) is what fuels their ratings. It's pathological and exists on a level that no other Democrat (save for possibly Ted Kennedy) can match.

[bidenista]

6. taking off my hillary hat for a moment

I really do believe that this is because Bill Clinton was an incumbent Democrat. We haven't seen how they'd behave with another, but I would be AMAZED if it weren't more of the same. Obama's a great speaker, but his policies in office would be hated by RWers. Imagine them reacting to his foreign policy proposals, especially in this time of "terr-ah". I wouldn't be surprised if Michelle were smeared in exactly the same way Hillary has been.

One of the good things about Hillary is that she's been there. She knows what these freaks say about her, and she doesn't care. If she is elected president, she'll just ignore them.

[THUNDER HANDS]

13. taking off my obama hat for a moment

you make a very good point. The RW would hate his policies. But then again, the Democrats hated Reagan's policies too, and he was very effective in what he was able to accomplish because he was a really good communicator and went over the heads of Congress and spoke to the people.

I think Obama can do that too.

Yes, Hillary has been there and knows how to fight them, but I don't think she can just ignore them. To ignore accusations and attacks is to, by default, acknowledge their validity. On top of that, her husband and his role in the White House would be a constatnt source of scrutiny, even if he had no official capacity.

[Whisp]

26. she will also ignore democrats.

the real ones.
but definitions of That has been fogged lately.

[NYCGirl]

2. Fox News (properly known as Fox Noise) was started just to counter the

Clintons. It's their stock in trade.

[RC]

24. Not true. They were started as the mouth piece of the bu$h White House

[NYCGirl]

28. Fox News Channel was started in 1996. Poppy Bush was not in office. NT

[RC]

32. What does Poppy have to do with anythng?

Keith Rupert Murdoch started Fox News. You know the bu$h/karl/cheney & Hillary supporter.

[NYCGirl]

33. Yes, it was started in 1996 to go against the Clintons, as I said above.

Edited to add: It couldn't have been started as a mouthpiece for the Bush WH, since Bush1 was no longer in the WH, and Bush2 wasn't even warming up in the bullpen yet.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. Clinton Hate Inc. is already back

Team Obama has gotten into bed with it. If it has any brains, it will get out immediately, before the foreplay gets hot.

If you think that the GOP will go any easier on Barack Obama, you have an unjustifiably high opinion of them. At least with Clinton, the RW hate machine has played its hand.

If you want to support Obama, at least make it for good reasons. I am sure there are many.

Can he stomp the head of the Republican lizard into pulp? That would be a good start.

--p!

[chascarrillo]

5. First part is true, but I'm confident that they'll find it profitable to start hating someone new.

Oh look - Mexicans! Muslims! Run away!!!

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. ...and they will totally marginalize themselves in the process

They will become the hard burnt out cinder core of a once growing movement that represented "a new morning for America" under Ronald Reagan which is how they managed to grow in the first place.

Democrats made major gains in the mid term congressional elections in 1998 as a backlash against the Republicans impeachment of Bill Clinton. George W. Bush had to run in 2000 as a kinder gentler "compassionate conservative" who was "a uniter, not a divider" in order to have any chance of winning the Presidency.

The hate that will ooze out from under Right Wing rocks trying to attack Hillary will repell and disgust most Americans. It may consolidate the core of the Republican Party, but it will peel away all the layers of support that it counts on to win National elections that do not make up that core. After 8 years of Bush the hard bitter core of conservative Republicans that remains can no longer win elections, and a hate based campaign will push away the broader support that they would need to regain power.

I am absolutely counting on ugly tactics being used against Hillary Clinton for President to help her win. Women are a majority group in America. They will not sit still and watch that happen without rallying to Hillary Clinton.

[rodeodance]

11. I do not think they will either

I am absolutely counting on ugly tactics being used against Hillary Clinton for President to help her win. Women are a majority group in America. They will not sit still and watch that happen without rallying to Hillary Clinton.

[rug]

8. That's exactly the reason to vote for Clinton.

She has thrived after 17 years of the vilest shit since the heyday of the Know-Nothing Party. She can fight and will win.

As for Obama, he has hope and apparently not the stomach to run again if he loses.

[emilyg]

12. Hear. Hear.!

[THUNDER HANDS]

14. well, to be fair

her husband won, she didn't.

She is just as untested as Obama is, running on her own.

[rug]

17. To be fair, she took more shit in 93 and 94 than any politician presently running.

[THUNDER HANDS]

18. that wasn't a campaign though

and it was 2 to 3 years before she had to participate in the re-election campaign of her husband.

[rug]

21. It was a campaign for health care which is far more important than reliving the Beatles at Idlewild.

[THUNDER HANDS]

22. you lost me

what is Idlewild?

[rug]

25. JFK International Airport, renamed after the actual JFK was killed.

[THUNDER HANDS]

27. oh

okay, I get you now.

Still, though, Hillary has yet to run a campaign on her own and really be tested.

[rug]

29. I must have been asleep the last 13 months.

[THUNDER HANDS]

30. i meant before this

[Crooked Moon]

9. i partially agree with you...

and feel somewhat silly that i didn't see your post before posting much the same theory:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4469851&mesg_id=4470572

where we differ is that i see that as no reason to not vote for ms. clinton if one is so inclined. as others have pointed out, hillary is his preferred foe, but that might only be because he believes she'll emerge with the nomination.

he would be no kinder to mr. obama.

[THUNDER HANDS]

15. i didn't say it was a reason not to vote for her

I said it was a reason TO vote for Obama. In the scenario I listed above, it would be a win for them and a win for us, potentially. An Obama nomination and win would be a lose-lose for them.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

10. Let's give in then.

[THUNDER HANDS]

16. you didn't read my post, did you?

If you did, you'd see that I said it's not a reason not to vote for her, or a reason for her not to get the nomination.

[Mags]

19. Honey, just wait till they let loose on BO. You ain't seen nothing yet.

[Skip Intro]

20. That's why they couldn't attack Kerry?

:eyes:

it doesn't matter who we nominate, the rw attack machine will be more than ready and willing.

to think they won't come after Obama is beyond hope

[THUNDER HANDS]

23. i never said they wouldn't

and if you read my post again, you'll see I never said it was a reason not to vote for Hillary or nominate her.

But there's an unhealty passionate hatred that exists for the Clintons that just isn't there with Obama, and wasn't there with Kerry.

[hay rick]

31. Hillary haters

Let me get this straight. We should support Obama because it will frustrate the all-powerful Hillary haters. Now I can see how some or even most people who hang out here might prefer Obama to Hillary. What I can't understand is how any Democrat could prefer any of the Republican candidates to Hillary. The difference between the right wing of the Democratic party and the left wing of the Republican party is not a gulf, it is an ocean. Saying they are both "corporate" is a cop out. Who are these people listening to, Ralph Nader?