A Troubling Analogy: Why Do Some Support Nixon Dirty Tricksters Over Democrat Hillary Clinton?

[McCamy Taylor]

First I have a question that every single person at DU who is not a Freeper mole needs to be asking themselves: Why is Pat Buchanan doing commentary on the Democratic primary? Pat Buchanan’s claim to fame is as Nixon’s dirty campaign tricks master. Here are some of the dirty tricks he invented:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/stories/buchananmemo.htm

"The preparation of attacks on one Democrat by another -- and 'endorsements' of one Democrat by another, which has to be repudiated, are examples of what can be done. Nothing should be done here, incidentally, which can seriously backfire and anything done should be cleared by the highest campaign authority. The Secret Service, it should be noted, will be all over Miami; and any activity will have to take into consideration their capabilities.
"We should guard here against a) anything which enables the Democrats to blame us for the mess which takes place in Miami Beach; b) anything which can be traced back to us and c) anything which is so horrendous as to damage us, if the hand is discovered."

Buchanan lied about the existence of this document to Congress, which makes him a perjurer. He could have been tried, convicted and sent to jail.

The Nixon specialty in 1972 was interfering in the Democratic primary---sabotaging Muskie’s campaign in order to force him out of the race to make way for challengers whom Nixon declared that he would rather run against, because he thought they would be easier to beat. In other words, Buchanan, Nixon and CREEP chose the 1972 Democratic presidential candidate for us---they only let us think that we were getting to select McGovern. They cleared the field.

If this were a normal democracy in which normal rules applied, a known partisan dirty trickster like Pat Buchanan would never be allowed to do on air commentary on the Democratic primary where he can interject comments that might sway voters opinion. This is no different than MSNBC sending the Plumbers into Democratic Headquarters.

Now, my next point, in “A Troubling Pattern” H20 Man reminds us of the dirty tricks played by the Nixon re-election campaign.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4509372

Then, H20 Man closes with the implication that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton somehow has the powers of Nixon---FCC with power to grant favors or squash media empires, Department of Justice which can initiate bogus prosecutions in retaliation and cover up criminal activity, warrantless wiretaps for blackmail purposes against news industry executives and lots of U.S. government money to use as bribes---to use to force MSNBC and the rest of the news media to do her bidding.

This is so hysterically funny---right up there with Hillary was having an affair with Vince Foster so she got her goons from the Arkansas Mafia to rub him out---that I would laugh---if not for the fact that so many people at DU are parroting this nonsense.

Just the facts, Jack. Hillary is not Michael Bloomberg. She is not a billionaire. She is not a Bush either, with friends in Saudi Arabia who can ship in suit cases full of cash. The military and CIA and FBI all despise her and her husband, so they are not going to kill anyone for her. Those who secretly believe that she has supernatural powers or laser beam eyes are just too stupid to argue with.

All Hillary has to bargain with is the debates. And she needs those a hell of a lot more than Obama. Think about it. Obama does not want to debate. He is ahead, but Hillary gets momentum when they debate. If Hillary is willing to give up one of her two precious debates, because she is so angry over Chelsea, she harms herself much more than MSNBC—and she helps Obama. Her actions are not those of political calculation. They are those of a mother. Only someone who believes that the ground rules state “Hillary must always act unfeeling so that we can hate her” would complain---and that is exactly how some Obama supporters seem to be reacting now.

“She is stealing our victimhood!”

I don’t know how many times I have seen some variation of this. If you people had any idea what it is really like to be one of society’s victims----say a child soldier in Africa or a young mother in Thailand with AIDS or homeless veteran with PTSD---you would be telling Hillary “Take my victimhood! Please!”

Knowing what I know about Tweety and his misogyny, I watched CNN’s election coverage last night to see why some self advertised “Obama supporters” (I think more than a few are Freeper trouble makers) claim that MSNBC is “fair and balanced” in its Hillary coverage while CNN is biased. What I saw was a news network that was discussing issues like the economy and the mortgage crisis and how much money the candidates had and who won last night (Obama). No one called Hillary a goddess. No one called Hillary a she-devil.

Hmm. Could this be the problem? Have the self described Obama supporters come to expect Hillary bashing as their due? Does any news network that does not deliver “she-devil” and reminiscences on Clinton’s penis face their wrath? It is true that the corporate media Big Lie Hillary is a Bitch is very convenient for them. Lots of potential Obama supporters are also potential Hillary supporters. If they can work themselves and other Democrats into a frenzy of “Hillary is so eeeevil” then they can get some Democratic voters to switch candidates. Never mind that Obama is not running on a platform of “Hillary is so eeeevil!” Barack is inspiring and a great crowd pleaser, but maybe he is not nasty enough when it comes to trench warfare. Maybe his supporters have to help him out.

So, Obama’s supporters seek to turn everything that happens to the Clintons into some kind of evil attack on their candidate. If Hillary tries to defend her daughter, she is threatening one of the Obama campaign’s secret weapons—Tweety’s sexist attacks.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801110002?f=i_related

Using overtly sexist language, he has referred to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) as a "she devil" and compared her to a "strip-teaser." He has called her "witchy" and likened her voice to "fingernails on a blackboard." He has referred to men who support her as "castratos in the eunuch chorus." He has suggested Clinton is not "a convincing mom" and said "modern women" like Clinton are unacceptable to "Midwest guys." He has called her "Madame Defarge" and "Nurse Ratched."

The suspension of Schuster has lead many to wonder why Matthews is still there---and if Matthews is fired or suspended who will keep up the Big Lie that Hillary is a Bitch who only draws air and walks the earth to steal the spotlight from Obama who deserves all the attention because his adoring followers say that he does .

Check out this from Crooks and Liars:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/08/david-shuster-suspended-over-chelsea-clinton-remarks/

Hi David, I’ve really liked the work you’ve done (and want you get your own show) and so does most of the blogosphere, but saying Chelsea’s being “pimped out” was out of line. Why is it not OK for Chelsea to campaign for her mother? If David used the word “pimp” in any context associated with the Obama camp, I think I know how everyone would react. He’s apologizing on Tucker later today. That’s a good thing.

“On Thursday’s “Tucker” on MSNBC, David Shuster, who was serving as guest-host of the program, made a comment about Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton campaign that was irresponsible and inappropriate. Shuster, who apologized this morning on MSNBC and will again this evening, has been suspended from appearing on all NBC News broadcasts, other than to make his apology. He has also extended an apology to the Clinton family. NBC News takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks.”

Makes you wonder why Matthews wasn’t suspended.

But then check out the comment below:

I’m so sick of The Fucking Clintons. This is all they do. Cry, cry, cry. Whine, whine, whine. She has to grab the attention away from Obama who has momentum. Is this what you Democrats are going to vote for on? The Endless Clinton Soap Opera. Maybe MSNBC is in on it with them. Yet you all never seriously took The Great Whore Master to task when he attacked Obama in South Carolina. Now the Whore Master is going around saying that he’s allowed to support his wife but not defend her. What a joke coming out of the Great Wife Cheater’s mouth.

Somewhere, someone is saying that this comment is all Clinton’s fault. Because he or she or both of them are too divisive.

Look at the language of the comment posted at Crooks and Liars That is a classic woman hating rant. Hillary is emasculating Obama, stealing his power. “The Great Whore”. Bill is the consort of the whore or the Devil (serpent in the world’s oldest religions). The reference to coming out of his mouth even references the lies of the Devil. Oh man, Joseph Campbell would have had a field day with that one. Classic modern male terror of the remembered powerful female.

And this remark is not the isolated ravings of one weirdo. This comment speaks for a lot of people in America. We are a seriously messed up country where women are the victims of more hate crimes that any other group. Bill Clinton came into office vilified, because he presented his wife to the American people as an equal, and the large woman hating portion of our population just could not stand it. The women of New Hampshire were vilified as “racists”, because they felt more comfortable trusting another women with their reproductive choice than a man, even though as Catholics they have probably seen male politicians sell them out on the issue before. Every day in America, women who are raped are asked “What were you wearing? Why did you go there alone?” As if the hatred and violence that was directed their way was their fault. They asked for it. This is how society oppresses women, pushes them back into the hole where they are supposed to live, subservient, beaten down, always there for some man to take a swing at when his day at work does not go well.
When the Hillary bashers claim that it is all her fault that her daughter is insulted, it is part of the same bloody sick pattern.

The more I see of woman hating America, the more convinced I become that we are not just ready for a woman president or vice president. We need it.

Otherwise, we will hate ourselves. You can not oppress your mothers, sisters, daughters and wives without feeling remorse, shame and guilt. You can project those feelings on the women, but that only makes the negative emotions worse. Once we get conflicted enough, then the corporate media can send in its Pat Buchanans and its Chris Matthews to tell all kind of lies about why we feel bad and what we need to do to make all the pain go away. They will not say “It is because you are treating another human being in an inhumane way” Oh no! The corporate media pundits will tell you what their corporate masters want you to hear. Tweety will tell you that you feel angry, because Bill Clinton did it. Pat Buchanan will tell you it is the immigrants.

Hitler said it was the Jews.

[DURHAM D]

1. I am afraid this will fly right over the head of many if not most Obama supporters.

[ClericJohnPreston]

58. Funny

Those were my exact thoughts as well. Too many words for them and their simplistic view of the world.

It truly is pathetic, that such a bloc of DU is so malleable, they hear substance, where there is none, and so easily manipulated, they see conspiracies which don't exist.

It is the worst of all possible worlds, gullible as to substance and irrational in hatred.

[niceypoo]

62. Which brings up more troubling questions...

...What is it about Obama that inspires such a scorched earth attitute in his following?

Why are they so unabashedly negative towards others, particularily Hillary, and willing to stoop to Ken Starr smears to attack with? Is this, 'support for Obama' in their minds? When will they begin talking about policy?

When does the 'Hope' begin or is that just empty talk? How can you preach hope while attacking people?

[ClericJohnPreston]

68. Which brings up even more questions....

As Hope is just an empty campaign mantra as used by Obama to whip his crowds into a belief of false substance. You see, by using mere glittering generalities, his cabal simply projects onto his purposeful BLANK SLATE ( thats why you don't see details )whatever hopes and dreams his supporters have. That is why they are so commited and so irrational. Just try to get specifics from them.

As far as unity? Another phrase without meaning. If he cared about unity he wouldn't have run, as he swore he wouldn't. He is MANAGED by Corporate lobbyists ( Axelrod )and will say or do anything to get elected. See McClurkin and Reagan et al.

His followers are blinded by their own hopes and dreams being used against them. It is pathetic and sad.

[goldcanyonaz]

2. Great OP! I never knew Clinton was the enemy until I joined this forum.

[Auntie Bush]

13. Same here. I was totally SHOCKED at the hatred.

One would think we were on FR. I never in my life heard such anger at our own Democratic 2 term president. The one who saved our party and country from ruin. Who was beloved by the world and voted most popular man in the world. A real true philanthropist. Did our party always hate him? Or, has it just been since they wanted Obama to win...making the Clinton's the enemy?

Anyway...great post! You hit the nail on the head about the misogynist MSNBC channel featuring Matthews and Tucker.

[McCamy Taylor]

17. I have seen the word "Clintonista" used here. Only Freepers use that word.

Did they already close the Free Republic?

[Auntie Bush]

20. I don't know if they closed it or not...never go there.

But now that you mention it...I do remember hearing they were going to close it down due to lack of funds. How could they get enough people to say kind things about bush*? Even the Rethugs don't like him!

[liberalhistorian]

33. Those of us who are Obama supporters

have been called numerous names by the Clinton supporters, including "Obamababies", "Obamabozos", "O-bots", "Obamamaniacs", "Obamessiahs" and on and on. And with great gusto, too, I might add. I don't recall reading one word of apology from any of the Clinton people about that. AT ALL. I am NOT an Obamababy, Obamabozo, O-bot, Obamamaniac, Obamessiah. I am an Obama supporter. Just as you are not a Hillhound, Shrillbot or Hillbot, just a Hillary supporter. But I hear the former names against us a lot more than the latter names, believe me.

And let's not put a halo over the head of the Clinton campaign or supporters, mmmmkay? They have resorted to their own dirty tricks against Obama, no question. But I guess that doesn't count, does it? Anything to get her into office, huh? She's allowed to manipulate, twist and distort what he does and says, and to smear with the nonsense about drug use and the racial divisiveness, etc., but if he responds to it he's the one with the manipulation and dirty tricks? I don't think so.

Clinton has run on a "victimhood" platform, pulling the misogyny card at every turn, which is bullshit. She has also run on an "inevitability" platform, in other words, it's inevitable that she will be given the nomination and she is entitled to the presidency, damnit! How dare anyone else run against her and how dare people vote for anyone but her! She should just be given the damned nomination. Don't people know they owe her everything and they should be grateful? And her supporters here have been relentless this past year in shoving her down our throats, yammering that she will be the nominee, like it or not, and get over it.

So, what it basically boils down to is that her and her supporters are like spoiled little children, stamping their feet because they're not getting everything they want and are demanding that they deserve. Newsflash. No one is holding a gun to people's heads and forcing them to vote for Obama. People are exercising their right to vote for whom they want and right now, they ain't buyin' what Clinton is selling. This IS a democracy, you know. She is not automatically entitled to the nomination and the presidency.

[bagrman]

49. Never fails, you can't talk about their records or past so you resort to name calling. Dweebs.

[liberalhistorian]

114. I'm not the one calling names. I and other Obama supporters

are the ones being called seemingly endless names, with nary an apology in sight. So, why don't YOU talk about her record? Why don't you talk about the fact that Obama was right on the money in what he said would happen in the ME in 2002 if we went into Iraq, whereas Hillary spouted Bush's line and unapologetically voted for the IWR. A vote which, to this day, she has yet to even acknowledge was wrong or apologize for. Or how about her PATRIOT Act votes, or her enthusiastic voting for EVERY single war funding bill put before Congress, or her failure to do anything at all to stop the bankruptcy "reform" bill which has hurt so many, many, people, or..........I could go on and on, but why bother? You'd rather think up yet more stupid derogatory names for Obama supporters. Way to get people on your side.

[bagrman]

121. Mine was more tongue in cheek. So many of the posts just resort to name

calling it's like being on a play ground. I wish The Clinton backers would answer some of the things brought up about Their past and her present record, cause they are going to need the practice. Since Edwards got out I'm for Obama. It'll be a sad day for the Dems if she gets nominated, all the new energized voters will be gone. same'o, same'o

[pnwmom]

53. Hillary's a spoiled little child, huh? But you're no misogynist, not you.

:sarcasm:

[Arugula Latte]

60. Why is it if one of us doesn't like Hillary we're automatically a misogynist?

I'm a woman who wants a woman prez. I don't want Hillary, though..So now I'm a woman-hater?

Broad brush, much?

[pnwmom]

105. Not liking her or her positions isn't misogyny. But ridiculing her in terms

with sexist overtones is.

[liberalhistorian]

116. Oh, please. Spoiled little child is not a sexist term,

it can and has been used against men plenty of times. I'm really sick of the misogyny card being played against anyone who isn't a Hillary supporter or who says one thing even slightly in disagreement with her. Hillary supporters don't obviously plan to vote for Obama, does that automatically make them racist? Because, by your logic, it would. But I can't wait to hear how that's "different."

[pnwmom]

137. Of course it is, since women legally had the status of children for a good part

of our nation's history, and still do throughout much of the world. African-American adults during slavery had the same status.

I already said that I don't take issue with people who oppose Hillary because they disagree with her record or her positions. There's nothing inherently sexist or racist in simply opposing the candidacy of either HRC or Obama. I can't imagine why you think my logic would dictate otherwise. I guess that is the kind of mistake that is made when people jump into threads without reading the previous posts.

[niceypoo]

64. So, is this the 'HOPE' that you guys brag about?

Or is it 'HATE?'

[niceypoo]

65. x

[rodeodance]

80. You are the one playing the victim!

Clinton has run on a "victimhood" platform

[yardwork]

93. Many Hillary supporters have spoken out against rude anti-Obama posts.

I posted in several threads yesterday that I disagreed with the name-calling on both sides. I noticed that several other Hillary supporters as well as Obama supporters did the same.

Many DUers are polite. We may argue strongly, even vehemently, but we don't resort to name-calling. It's a mistake to take the rude behavior of some as characteristic of all.

[liberalhistorian]

34. Those of us who are Obama supporters

have been called numerous names by the Clinton supporters, including "Obamababies", "Obamabozos", "O-bots", "Obamamaniacs", "Obamessiahs" and on and on. And with great gusto, too, I might add. I don't recall reading one word of apology from any of the Clinton people about that. AT ALL. I am NOT an Obamababy, Obamabozo, O-bot, Obamamaniac, Obamessiah. I am an Obama supporter. Just as you are not a Hillhound, Shrillbot or Hillbot, just a Hillary supporter. But I hear the former names against us a lot more than the latter names, believe me.

And let's not put a halo over the head of the Clinton campaign or supporters, mmmmkay? They have resorted to their own dirty tricks against Obama, no question. But I guess that doesn't count, does it? Anything to get her into office, huh? She's allowed to manipulate, twist and distort what he does and says, and to smear with the nonsense about drug use and the racial divisiveness, etc., but if he responds to it he's the one with the manipulation and dirty tricks? I don't think so.

Clinton has run on a "victimhood" platform, pulling the misogyny card at every turn, which is bullshit. She has also run on an "inevitability" platform, in other words, it's inevitable that she will be given the nomination and she is entitled to the presidency, damnit! How dare anyone else run against her and how dare people vote for anyone but her! She should just be given the damned nomination. Don't people know they owe her everything and they should be grateful? And her supporters here have been relentless this past year in shoving her down our throats, yammering that she will be the nominee, like it or not, and get over it.

So, what it basically boils down to is that her and her supporters are like spoiled little children, stamping their feet because they're not getting everything they want and are demanding that they deserve. Newsflash. No one is holding a gun to people's heads and forcing them to vote for Obama. People are exercising their right to vote for whom they want and right now, they ain't buyin' what Clinton is selling. This IS a democracy, you know. She is not automatically entitled to the nomination and the presidency.

[ClericJohnPreston]

63. Obama has divided the party

while he talks about creating a unity with Republicans.

He among many other promises, said he wouldn't run in 2008. He should have stuck by his word, which obviously means very little to him.

A dynamic of Edwards versus Clinton, would have been a clear choice between style and substance. With Edwards out, it is merely two flavors of the same candidate.

In the end though, I am very much anti-Obama, as much for his fluff and character, as well as my belief that Hillary can withstand the Rethugs, while Obama would wilt.

The Rethugs are salivating at the idea of Obama in a General Election. Can you say Rezko? They certainly will.

[niceypoo]

67. Obama has been doing what Bush did in 2000 and 2004

Letting his 'supporters' and the media do all the dirty work on his behalf while he says nothing to stop it, staying supposedly 'above the fray.'


It is absolutely obvious he supports all of the negativity heaped in his name. This is the dirtiest campaign ever run by a democrat.

[Whisp]

73. good cripes some of you have lost your friggin' minds. nt

[rodeodance]

87. Obama waited days before saying that Hillary's comments were NOT racial and in

these days--obaba surrogates whipped it up-one after another--and the media continued to stir the toxic stew!!---He allowed the toxic stuff to go on and on!




......Letting his 'supporters' and the media do all the dirty work on his behalf while he says nothing to stop it, staying supposedly 'above the fray.'.........

[liberalhistorian]

115. They're going crazy over the fact that this is actually

a democracy and that Hillary will not be crowned Queen automatically as they'd hoped and as they've been shoving down our throats relentlessly this past year. Too bad.

[digidigido]

71. divisveness

Barack Obama, has not taken a dime from special interests, his contributions have come from the people.
The voter turnout in the democratic primaries has been HUGE. In a nation that has been divided by the
"uniter" for 8 years there is an electorate that wants chnage and wants an intelligent candidate who we
can beleive in. You have the affrontery to suggest that the candidate of the people is the one dividing the
party? Bill Clinton lowered the standards of the Presidency of the United States. His actions showed that
he felt it was acceptable to be caught in a lie, and caught in perjury, and remain as President of the United
States. A moral man, a man with a sense of shame, would have resigned. Have you forgotten the Clinton
years? You want to talk about disiveness, the Clinton's are the posterchildren for it. This country is tired
of that poster.

[paulk]

76. the "divisiveness" of the Clinton years

came from Republicans attacking Democrats.

Obama's campaign features Democrats attacking Democrats.

Kind of like your post - which regurgitates the usual right wing spam vs the Clintons.

This has, unfortunately, become another feature of the Obama campaign.

[rodeodance]

77. and now LOTS of obamacrickets this melicious RW chattrer on this Board!

[paulk]

83. yes, it's....

fascinating, sort of.

[creeksneakers2]

124. The people who hate Clinton now hated him before Monica

Right from the start, the right wing started trying to build a case for impeachment. One of their favorite tricks, and the one that actually worked, was to just kick up any bogus accusation and set perjury traps.

The Clinton haters were ecstatic when Bill was caught. The people who didn't like Clinton unified behind him. He was up to 70% popular.

I'm 51 now but first learned about politics watching the Pennsylvania House of Representatives when I was 17. It immediately became apparent that men who have rich enemies are targets of prosecutors that the wealthy control, and it doesn't matter whether the charges are valid or not. While I first wanted Clinton to resign, I was glad later he didn't. America should have politics by elections, not power grabs supplied by witch hunts.

[AntiFascist]

79. Unfortunately the polls prove you wrong....

I think Bill Maher pointed it out the best when he said that not only is Obama more progressive than Clinton but he also appeals more to the Republicans who want change in Washington. This explains why he does better in matchups against McCain. Hillary's campaign supporters are doing more to divide the Dems than anyone.

[paulk]

89. do you really think "matchups with McCain" at this point

have any meaning? And I should give creedence to some libertarian fuckwit like Bill Maher?

I have yet to see any evidence that Obama is more progressive than Clinton. Just like I've rarely run into any of his supporters who can articulate his policy positions or their reasons for support beyond slogans and starry eyes. And the "starry eyes" thing goes double for anyone who thinks the more "progressive" of the candidates is somehow going to appeal to "Republicans who want change". Is this some kind of magic catagory of Republicans?

[AntiFascist]

94. Oh, I should have also mentioned the ever so important category of...

Independents (including fuckwits like Maher) who want change. Many in this group may also be influenced by Lou Dobb's rantings about the ineptitude of our current government.

The 'magic category of Republicans' would include paleocons and other fiscal conservatives who want to reverse the neoconservative direction that our government has been moving. Since all the front-running Repubs are hyping the War on Terror, this category has no other recourse but to support the Dem who best matches their desire for change.

[paulk]

112. why wouldn't those independents vote for McCain?

He's an outsider to the Republican hierarchy. He's no neocon. He has a record of bipartisanship. A real record he can actually point to, unlike Obama's. Tons of legislation with both his name and some Democrats on it.

And what is that group going to do when Lou Dobbs endorses McCain?

Do you really think they're going to vote for the guy with the most liberal ranking in the Senate?

The guy endorsed by Ted Kennedy?

[AntiFascist]

130. Thanks for pointing out Obama's liberal credentials...

As for McCain, if he's not a neocon then he is certainly doing a great impersonation of one: wanting to stay in Iraq for 100 years (military bases) AND wanting to invade Iran. He would take the PNAC agenda further than Bush!

Dobbs seems to be rooting for Huckabee, go figure.

[Chovexani]

113. Not only is he a libertarian fuckwit

He's also a misogynist pig. Interesting that they'd trot him out in Obama's defense.

And by "interesting" I mean "totally not surprising".

[McCamy Taylor]

101. Be fair. Republican tricksters are the more likely culprits. Obama wants to win this fall.

He can not do it with a divided party.

Look at Buchanan's first dirty trick---fake attacks against Democrats by other Democrats

The Internet makes this even easier to do now than it was in 1972.

Obama can come out and denounce the latest divisive movement, but it will take his people at least a day or two to notice that one has formed and arrange for him to make a statement and get it issued to the MSM---and 24-48 hours is a lifetime on the Internet.

What we are seeing on DU and the other liberal blogs is a coordinated attack by someone who has studied CREEP and Buchanan and 1972 very well. I think Buchanan himself runs the show at MSNBC burt Karl Rove left DC to run the whole thing.

[creeksneakers2]

126. Many of the nasty comment posters follow the thought patterns

and behavioral habits of wingnuts.

[rodeodance]

78. guess i am behind on this terminology--as i did not know it was Winger stuff. thanks

[Big Blue Marble]

86. How did WJC save "our party and our country from ruin?"

How many congressman, senators, governors and state legislators less were there after 8 years
of Clinton? How many people have lost their jobs because of NAFTA? And how many
disadvantaged mothers are having to work because of welfare reform?

Clinton left a legacy that was mixed at best.

"Who was beloved by the world and voted most popular man in the world."

Has anyone dared to mention there maybe a Cult of Clinton?
Are you blind to the downside of the Clinton Adminstration or
are you blindly worshiping him?

I and many who support Obama recognized he is a flawed candidate as is Hillary as is McCain.
Our job as voters is to determine who is the best not who is God.

[ruggerson]

3. This post needs to be rec'd all the way to the front page

k/r

[theHandpuppet]

4. Thank you for having the courage to post this.

:kick:

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. GREAT post! K & R!

:kick:

[bidenista]

6. nice work, but i could've lived without the last sentence. nt

[McCamy Taylor]

18. I felt it was needed. The guys at MSNBC are in the very early stage of using fascist tricks to sell

McCain. Before we know it, he will be Il Duce, the strong man who can bring order out of chaos and make the trains run on time.

[pnwmom]

138. My disappointment with Olbermann is that he doesn't ever seem to

call them on it. And he plays footsie with Tweety.

[robbedvoter]

7. Thank you! Masterful! One of the reasons I return here - posts like these

Indeed! The Clintons' power over GE's and all the corporations propaganda machines stem from the mythical Mighty Clenis powers!(They just didn't feel like using them during Bill's presidency - as they wanted then to fully mature in order to grab attention from...Obama - their sinister goal since the beginning of times..
Many DU-ers that I used to respect - really lost a lot in my eyes over this particular controversy.

[bleever]

8. I'll step into this minefield.

First, by saying that I read your posts with interest and appreciation for the depth of sincerity you bring to your writing.

Second, by saying that the minefield is not the creation of one poster here, or one position, or one expression of passion or outrage.

The minefield is this amazing confluence we are blessed with of a competitive woman candidate for the presidency, along with a competitive African-American man. This convergence of the stars of history is wondrous to behold, and fraught with all the questions so many people of good will have been trying to resolve, through each generation, in order to fulfill the ideal of an America that moves ever forward towards fulfilling the promise of its ideals to all people. All people.

But my opinion, plainly put forth here, is that H2O Man never implied that Hillary has the power of Nixon to suppress the media, or to say that her defense of her daughter's honor made her the equal of the outlaw that Nixon chose to become in his quest to squelch all dissent and allow him to violate the law. But H2O Man is, I believe, smart enough to know that in the hard-knuckled world of politics, power needs always to be checked, and that attacks against the media need to observed closely. Nobody observes more closely, I think, the intricacies of the interaction of politics, media, and public perception than the Clintons. This is to their credit, but there is an inherent danger in how a politician exercises her own voice when pushing back. This too has its own intricacies and dangers, and this is what I took to be the central point of the post referenced in the OP.

I think that there has been a hyperbolic dimension to the protests of those who claim that H2O Man is painting Hillary as Nixon in a pants suit. He has defended her against many of the base attacks against her character and motivation that we've seen here on DU.

This is such a tremendously sensitive issue for all of us that even talking about how we've defended our own wives and daughters against discrimination, insensitivity, and all the vagaries that go into disadvantaging women, there is still for some a stinging sense of being unheard.

Some of those who've felt unheard here on DU are people I have respect and affection for. Were we to sit together and eat, and watch each other's kids, and make sure that everyone got home safely, it would be a little better. But it's still pretty hard.

Pretty damn hard. But I think those of us who are sincere and thoughtful and caring can, and will work through it.

[robbedvoter]

9. To me - it's the crass insensitivity to a parent whose child has been called names

Just because she is "the other candidate" - does not justify anyone in the media to call one's daughter a whore.
Just because a family member participate in a campaign, does NOT give the right to anyone in the media to attack her THIS WAY.
And while at it,

how about Kerry demanding that media NOT cover Florida?

(we're not talking here about "a poor young man who called someone's daughter a whore, but close to 2 million voters who did nothing to Kerry (except vote for him in 2004)

[bleever]

10. Shuster's poor choice of words

is not the same as concluding that he meant to "call one's daughter a whore".

And I don't wish to demean anyone's feelings about this issue by stating that "crass insensitivity to a parent" can't really by used to describe anyone who acknowledges the mistake that Shuster made, and the need for a sincere apology for that mistake.

[robbedvoter]

12. He acknowledged that he was criticizing as opposed to "they boasted about her"

I know you guys tried the "pimp my ride" analogy - but if you read his e-mail to the campaign, he says he was entitled to criticize. So the "poor choice of words" was exactly what we heard: am attack - he felt entitled to make.
Think Imus's "nappy headed hos" - directed at Obama family - because they were helping the candidate. See how you feel about it (because I was one of those screaming for Imus to be fired)

[bleever]

14. I didn't use that

analogy.

[ClericJohnPreston]

69. I resent

Your being an apologist for H2O, Mr. Waterman. His words clearly speak for themself as to his intent and his state of mind.

He has been rightfully excoriated for that post, which he FULLY deserved, I might add. In fact, it's time to kick it again, to keep his duplicity and insensitivity on full display!

I encountered this joker, who commands such respect, in my own Pro-Edwards threads from day one. He always had his usual array of two word rebukes and ALWAYS was in the OBAMA Camp. He is disingenuous to the core about his "recent" conversion to the Obama Camp, and actually had the temerity to suggest he was on the Edwards bandwagon.

Say what? I have been a part of the entire Edwards team in the supporters section, and at no time was Waterman a part of it...ever.

So why the duplicity here? Why the need to lie? Why feign neutrality? Who cares.

Waterman has finally shown himself. Good on that!

[bleever]

88. Your resentment

is noted.

And I will continue to speak out, especially when I think that my words, or anyone else's, are being mischaracterized.

[Usrename]

66. The Imus episode may be instructive to what H2O Man was saying.

This is just my opinion, but I believe that Imus was personally the one responsible for pushing Bush's poll numbers below 30% for the first time. It was Imus' relentless pursuit of the Walter Reed story that was just crushing Bush. Below 25% approval in some polls.

Then came the remark (which I thought was much, much milder than their usual fare of disgusting xenophobic rants) and Imus was pulled off the air. To this day, I don't know why he was pulled off the air, at that moment, when he had said many far worse things on his show without even a peep from anyone. I don't know if the real racists that populate some media outlets got scared about their own behavior and decided to root for his removal to absolve themselves, or what other theory to apply and force it to fit those facts. The calls for his removal came from all quarters, even including the most unexpected places.

What I do know is this, and it is indisputable. After Imus had kept the Walter Reed story on the front pages for over three weeks, driving Bush completly into the dirt, that story completely disappeared within two days of his departure. Poof - the whole story was gone, never to return, as if it never even happened. Imus getting canned, at that particular moment in time, was just another lucky break for Karl Rove. And he seems to always have things break his way.

That may be what H2O Man and others are talking about. We should always be as vigilant as we can be when it comes to manipulating the media.

[ClericJohnPreston]

70. Umm

We don't need to read tea leaves or even guess at what Waterman ( H2O man ) was saying. His words are clear and unequivocal.

If that alone wasn't enough, his 30 or so further explanations within that thread were even more CONTEMPTIBLE than his post. He actually took pride in saying he likes to get noticed and to take a swipe at the hornets nest.

So, no more H2O apologists please.

[Usrename]

I apologize for getting my opinion wrong!

x(

[Bentcorner]

46. He didn't call anyone a whore. This has been so overblown.

Chelsea’s a big girl now. If she can’t take a little heat, she shouldn’t be trying to circumvent the democratic process by putting pressure on superdelegates to vote the opposite of the people.

Where were all the people calling for Shuster's firing when he compared Ron Paul to Al Qaeda?

[McCamy Taylor]

90. The founder of BET didn't call anyone a drug user. Obama is a big boy. If he can't take the heat why

is he running for president?

How does that feel?

There is no consistency or logic behind the arguments which self described Obama supporters use. And this makes me wonder how many of the Obama "supporters" on DU are RNC moles posting here to start flame wars intended to Divide and Conquer .

I suggest that the first thing that people do when they encounter these bogus accusations against Hillary is ask Would Obama be proud to hear you say this? Is this your candidate's official stance?

I suspect that we have a lot of McCain supporters dressed in sheep's clothing as per the Buchanan 1972 dirty tricks game plan.

[Bentcorner]

144. And I suspect that you are an idiot. If I was a McCain supporter, I would say so.

I'm voting for Barack Obama today as I suspect a lot of my fellow Maryland Democrats will be doing. In a way I'm glad Hillary decided to make a big deal out of the word "pimping". It demonstrates just how petty and vindictive she can be. If she honestly thought Shuster was implying that Chelsea was a prostitute, she is even more clueless then I think she is.

Keith Olbermann used the word "pimping". Should he be fired too?

[McCamy Taylor]

146. KO used "pimping" about Paetraus, an old male---no sexual innuendo there. Like "pimp my ride"

Not appropriate to use the word in relation to a young woman.

Context counts! As anyone with the ability to write a coherent sentence (meaning everyone who posts on DU knows---so stop being disingenuous.)

The difference is like the difference between Jesus saying "I have come to set the world on fire" and someone standing up in a crowded movie theater and yelling "Fire!"

[McCamy Taylor]

91. The founder of BET didn't call anyone a drug user. Obama is a big boy. If he can't take the heat why

is he running for president?

How does that feel?

There is no consistency or logic behind the arguments which self described Obama supporters use. And this makes me wonder how many of the Obama "supporters" on DU are RNC moles posting here to start flame wars intended to Divide and Conquer .

I suggest that the first thing that people do when they encounter these bogus accusations against Hillary is ask Would Obama be proud to hear you say this? Is this your candidate's official stance?

I suspect that we have a lot of McCain supporters dressed in sheep's clothing as per the Buchanan 1972 dirty tricks game plan.

[pnwmom]

139. Shuster wasn't insulting just Chelsea when he said that, he was using an

expression that insults women in general.

There's so much misogynistic language in our culture now that a lot of people are numb to it, but we shouldn't be.

[McCamy Taylor]

15. Here is what H2- wrote:

The comment by MSNBC’s David Shuster about Chelsea Clinton was clearly wrong, and there should be a consequence. However, the Washington Post is reporting that at a press conference, Senator Hillary Clinton "part of a ‘troubling pattern of demeaning treatment’ by MSNBC. ‘There has been a troubling pattern of comments and behaviors that has to be held accountable’, " Clinton told reporters. (Clinton Calls Shuster Comment ‘Part of Troubling Pattern’; Perry Bacon, Jr; Washington Post; Feb 9, 2008)

I am troubled by this attempt to "control" the media in a manner that clearly is going beyond simply addressing Shuster’s specific comment It is, I believe, part of a troubling pattern that poses a risk to the First Amendment.

Did I read this wrong? Was H20 saying that the 1001 Hillary bashing posts on DU are 'a troubling pattern that poses a risk to the First Amendment" rights of Hillary Clinton? Because all that the preceding paragraphs describes is a public comment by her in which she criticizes MSNBC for "a troubling pattern of comments and behaviors". A pattern that Media Matters documented and anyone who watches MSNBC can see. Hillary is doing all women a service if she forces MSNBC to stop degrading women.

There is an even more important issue here. Who control the Democratic Primary? Since 1972, the Republicans have tried to do so. In times past, the Federal Election Commission would have been called upon to step in if a major news network were discovered to be so openly partisan as Fox News has been these last eight years and as MSNBC has been this election cycle and as all the corporate media was against Edwards. Complaints would have been made about some candidates getting more coverage than others and about biased coverage. This year, we do not even get a functioning commission. So, the candidates and the public have to seek to challenge the power of the corporations which control the news media with their consumer clout.

General Electric is indebted to the Pentagon for its livelihood. As I have already documented, the Pentagon is illegally supporting McCain's campaign and MSNBC is openly shilling for McCain.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/139

In this situation, their interference with the Democratic Primary is highly suspect and must not be tolerated. Democrats should applaud Hillary Clinton and other Democrats who attempt to force MSNBC to stop using the airwaves to trash the Democratic candidates and to stop their Divide and Conquer campaign that is designed to get women so mad at the rest of the party that they stay home this fall. And they should applaud when they attempt to force MSNBC to stop giving McCain millions of dollars worth of free publicity as a "maverick" and a "truth teller" and an "independent".

Democrats should also be aware that when MSNBC chose to let Tweety stay on after his long history of sexist comments they gave the green light to people like Schuster. Now, for them to suspend Schuster makes no sense. Why not Tweety? It seems blatantly unfair. MSNBC knows that it seems unfair and it is hoping to create the impression that Hillary the She-Devil, the cause of all the world's suffering is the cause of that unfairness. Because this furthers MSNBC's own favorite Big Lie, Hillary is a Bitch . The sexist a-holes at NBC can sit around and complain about what a witch Hillary is, getting that nice Schuster in trouble. Can't she take a joke, like Obama did? You didn't see his people getting upset when that BET guy asked what he was doing as a teenager....

[bleever]

22. I will respectfully disagree as follows:

First, the statement that "...MSNBC's own favorite Big Lie, {is that} Hillary is a Bitch."

I watch MSNBC a lot. Okay, I skip Tucker. And to be even more honest, I often watch Hannity & Colmes, just to know what went out on the RNC fax memo for the day, and to catch which way the ground is sloping on any given day. So I know what it looks like when someone is vilified by a media asset or a particular network.

Second, I don't believe it's fair to say "people like Shuster" in a way that defines him by the worst interpretation of his regrettable statement. I'm not sure what "people like Shuster" is supposed to mean, but I don't think it's anywhere near a fair appraisal of his body of work, or his temperament.

And finally, I don't concur that MSNBC has been promoting McCain as a saintly "truth teller" or "maverick". Again, this is just my impression, but I am paying attention, and so I'm not afraid to state it.

[ruggerson]

24. Andrea Mitchell, Tim Russert, Norah O'Donnell, Howard Fineman

not to mention Matthews and his consigliere Shuster, have waged an all out propoganda campaign against Hillary Clinton. It's well documented by Media Matters and others. Why do you think they're running scared about all this? Have you ever seen an election season where TWO "journalists' have had to issue formal on-air apologies?

Dan Abrams comes on after the day is over and basically tells us that the preceding eleven hours were nothing but anti-Clinton bias. He is the one fresh breath of non-partisan air on the network.

Shuster's campaign news coverage has been extraordinarily one sided for months and Senator Clinton knows this hostility goes with the gig, so she has kept her mouth shut about virtually everything MSNBC has done. But when this idiot finally said something so egregiously offensive, she had had enough and let them known it. There was no intimidation. There was nothing that even remotely smacked of Nixonian tactics. MSNBC has been a corrupted information vehicle this year, they have not served this nation well at all. They are liars and misogynistic bullies. She actually should have stood up against them much earlier than she did.

[McCamy Taylor]

26. Bleever. You can't be paying attention. Check out my journals. I document

the "maverick" atrocity early in the day on MONSTER Super Tuesday. They had already been doing it for several days, but it was so bad that day that they had everyone who came on the show for a solid hour except Richard Wolfe use the term. Even Brokaw said it. I was so disgusted I started a thread called "If Anyone Else At MSMNB Uses the Word Maverick to Describe McCain I Will Puke" I wish I had a link to it. Here is a link to the journal I wrote about that evening atrocious election coverage.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/140

Lots of the stuff MSNBC probably just sails over people's heads. They get used to it, but there is no excuse for someone like Brokow getting on national TV and telling Republicans they have to get together behind McCain now if they do not want to end up like Hubert Humphrey in 1968. What kind of world is this, where NBC can get away with this shit and no one even notices? What is NBC, the official free election propaganda channel for the Republican presidential campaign? Is this affirmative action to make up for the fact that they can not raise money?

Imagine if Brokow got in the air and told Democrats that they needed to make Hillary and Obama form a ticket so that they could start campaigning now against the Republicans so that we could be sure to win this fall and end the war in Iraq. What kind of outrage would that cause?

"People like Schuster" just means all the people that work there. The employees. Tweety looks cool to them. If he gets away with it, it must be ok.

And yes, Matthews has called McCain a "truth teller" . Wanna know when? Someone mentioned the "100 Years of War" comment and Tweety said "That's ok. It just shows that McCain is a truth teller" He isn't afraid to say unpopular things. That is how they are going to explain his gaffes. He is independent. A maverick.

Actually, I think they noticed people were making fun if "maverick" because they abruptly stopped using it on election night. It was very sudden. I thought Tweety would go into buzz-word withdrawal. I guess he will just have to say "Democratic War" more often.

Until they fire Pat Buchanan that place will be toxic.

[robbedvoter]

30. SC Night: Hillary concedes. Scarborough and the rest roast her for NOT doing so

even as SHE IS DOING SO on the other half of the half screen. They all hotly debate it. Takes them a half an hour to issue an apology - laced with attacks too. Then NBC nightly News runs with "didn't even concede" - as ABC News gives clip of concession.
Super tuesday: "Whoever wins California, Wins the night" When Hillary does, the reasons why this is no longer true are explained.
Media matters has more - but they like your candidate, so you wouldn't be troubled by these.

[McCamy Taylor]

95. It gets worse. Tuesday afternoon, MSNBC airs polls that shows Obama winning California by up to 20

points. They are so excited, talking about how he is going to sweep the state. This is one of the oldest dirty tricks in the book. Make one candidate out to be unstoppable (what is that word that Hillary haters use? Inevitable ) So that Hillary voters will give up and go home after their grueling shifts at Wal-mart and Krogers and the factory and not bother voting. Luckily, Richard Wolfe got on and chastised them for pulling one poll out of their asses with an extreme result when all the other polls said something different. He reminded them that there were funny polls before New Hampshire and South Carolina that did not pan out either. Dan Abrams was one of the people attempting to hype that ridiculous poll, if I remember correctly. He looked extremely crestfallen at Wolfe's words.

And even more fortunately, the working Democrats of California paid no attention to MSNBC's "inevitability poll".

Later that night, Abrams did a mea culpa about how they had been suckered by the bad poll, but hey, the guys at MSNBC are not total idiots are they? I am a physician with no training in journalism or political science and no political contacts at all. If I could see that the poll was out of line, they could to. If I could see the likely effect on voters, so could they.

That is how corporate media dirty tricks work. You have to watch for them. That is why my first journal at DU is called "The Readerly News"

[McCamy Taylor]

100. It gets worse. Tuesday afternoon, MSNBC airs polls that shows Obama winning California by up to 20

points. They are so excited, talking about how he is going to sweep the state. This is one of the oldest dirty tricks in the book. Make one candidate out to be unstoppable (what is that word that Hillary haters use? Inevitable ) So that Hillary voters will give up and go home after their grueling shifts at Wal-mart and Krogers and the factory and not bother voting. Luckily, Richard Wolfe got on and chastised them for pulling one poll out of their asses with an extreme result when all the other polls said something different. He reminded them that there were funny polls before New Hampshire and South Carolina that did not pan out either. Dan Abrams was one of the people attempting to hype that ridiculous poll, if I remember correctly. He looked extremely crestfallen at Wolfe's words.

And even more fortunately, the working Democrats of California paid no attention to MSNBC's "inevitability poll".

Later that night, Abrams did a mea culpa about how they had been suckered by the bad poll, but hey, the guys at MSNBC are not total idiots are they? I am a physician with no training in journalism or political science and no political contacts at all. If I could see that the poll was out of line, they could to. If I could see the likely effect on voters, so could they.

That is how corporate media dirty tricks work. You have to watch for them. That is why my first journal at DU is called "The Readerly News"

[ruggerson]

19. What he wrote was indefensible

and if you read the entire thread in question, he can't even defend his own hateful tripe.

[bleever]

23. After I read the whole thread

(as it was after 200+ responses), my response was as follows:

I like Hillary Clinton. She will be a great president, I believe, if she gets the nomination.

I like Chelsea Clinton. She has always shown grace and poise, under the brightest of public spotlights. For someone to use the phrase "pimped out" in connection with her is inexcusable. If I were her parent, and running for office, I would have two reasons to object: first, the personal, wherein I demand that any such insinuation (intentional or not) be disavowed, and second, the political, where my response in defense of my daughter demonstrates my willingness to mix it up with anyone in politics or the media who wants to call me out. Dukakis learned the hard way that when someone brings your family into it, you have to react like a human, and not a policy wonk.

I like David Shuster. Others have already described his attributes as an excellent reporter and analyst. His use of the phrase "pimped out" was a tremendous error in judgment. My own guess is that he'd do anything to take those words back and to have said "farmed out" or "selectively deployed" instead. But we all have to pay for our mistakes. I understand his instinct to defend himself by saying that he never meant it in the most derogatory sense, and to try to put it into the context of the Clinton's selective granting of access to Chelsea, but he should be savvy enough to know that these days, a national figure shouldn't say "I'm sorry if..." or "I'm sorry but...", but should say unequivocally, "I'm sorry".

I like MSNBC. Lots of great stuff happening there; it's my favorite cable TV source of news. But if, while trying to be hip and edgy, some of the people there cross the line as they have recently, they have to fix it. It has to stop, for the good of everyone, including MSNBC and the good work that they are capable of doing.

And I like the First Amendment, and people dedicated to protecting it. Free discussion is imperative, and disagreements are inevitable. Anyone raising awareness of the the dangers of politicians trying to chill media scrutiny based on historical experience is fighting a critical fight. I think it's a good fight.


It's a fight worth having.

[H2O Man]

27. I disagree.

I don't think I have anything to "defend." A quick review:

(1) What David Shuster said about Chelsea Clinton was wrong.
(2) It is good for the public to respond.
(3) I can understand the Clintons, as parents, reacting.
(4) I am very uncomfortable with the note from Senator Clinton to MSNBC which stated that David's statement was part of a larger pattern, and that his being suspended was not enough.

There were two types of negative responses to my thread, and two types of positive responses. I'll limit my focus here to the negative comments that I thought raised important points that I had not considered fully when I wrote my essay:

(1) MSNBC does have an undeniable history, including their coverage of this primary, of seriously offensive sexist remarks. I had separated David's remark from the larger pool, because I do not think he is a sexist pig, even though his comment was terrible. Yet it is possible that he felt comfortable saying what he did, because of the general atmosphere at MSNBC.
(2) Not only does any parent have the right to respond, but all parents have an obligation to respond.
(3) The corporate media will not only attack Senator Clinton, but will use issues which get emotional reactions to cause divides in the democratic base, as they have done in 2000 and 2004. The media of today is not simply "journalists," but corporate interests who do not want any democrat in the White House.

Not surprisingly, the Shuster issue divides people on DU along the lines of the pro-Clinton versus the pro-Obama lines. I am an Obama supporter. I am in no way supporting Shuster's comment, and still have very real concerns about the Clinton camps's response to it. But I can appreciate that it isn't a situation with an easy answer. I do not think that the quality of the media coverage would be improved by firing David Shuster as an individual, and I do not think that either Fox or CNN provide as good of coverage as MSNBC.

[robbedvoter]

42. But Hillary did NOT ASK FOR HIS FIRING - they wanted the sexism addressed

This was posted on DU time after time but you refuse to acnowledge it
I linked this to your thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4510989
Clinton Campaign Not Looking for Shuster to Be Fired, After All
"
And despite Clinton's letter, saying David Martin Shuster's apology and suspension was not sufficient, Clinton's goal is not for NBC to fire Shuster, he and his fans will be happy to hear. Until Thursday, the Clinton campaign had no issues with Shuster, I'm told."

In fact as a poster in that thread notes:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4510989&mesg_id=4526084

"
In fact, she goes on to point her accusatory finger away from Shuster.

"I would urge you to look at the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language."

[ruggerson]

44. "pattern of behavior"

being the key phrase here.

[H2O Man]

47. More to come.

[ClericJohnPreston]

84. And Waterman

you don't address your bias based on the fact that you are very PRO-OBAMA, were disingenuous as to the timing of that support, and that you are routinely caustic in threads as to Clinton and those who support her.

Nice try at giving the appearance of civility, while apologizing for nothing.

[AikidoSoul]

117. Don't attack H2OMan

for the very same things that you are doing

You are projecting your own weaknesses onto him

It's more than just a little obvious

[H2O Man]

120. It's okay.

I thank you, but it is important to me to be attacked here.

[ruggerson]

123. You as a person

are not being attacked. At least not by me. Your thoughts, agendas and biases are under harsh scrutiny.

[H2O Man]

127. Give it time.

Ha!

[McCamy Taylor]

104. Your whole post was an excuse to equate Hillary with Nixon. That was the subliminal message.

You can argue from now until the cows come in about "what you mean" and "what you said" but I know propaganda when I see it. And so do all the other people at DU who saw through your post and posted their critical responses. We were not born yesterday.

That is why I wrote this post about who the real Nixonians are and what their real goals are. Because the truth will always put the lie to propaganda.

[ruggerson]

119. "I can appreciate that it isn't a situation with an easy answer."

The answer was not to deceitfully and maliciously compare Hillary Clinton to Richard Nixon.

I'm glad you're stepping back a bit from the ledge on which you rhetorically put yourself.

[H2O Man]

128. Stepping back?

What did Jimi say to the members of the Who backstage at Monterey?

[bettyellen]

132. still perpetuating the lie she asked for him to be fired?

[H2O Man]

28. dupe

[H2O Man]

29. dupe

[ClericJohnPreston]

72. Agreed as per my posts above!!!

[QC]

11. Kick! n/t

[emilyg]

16. k/r

[Corkey Mineola]

21. kick

:kick:

[NastyRiffraff]

25. BRAVO!!!

It doesn't matter who misogyny is directed against, it's inexcusable. The fact that it was about the daughter of a presidential candidate pushed the issue into the public mind...the only good thing about an ugly incident.

The same people on DU who are always calling for Democrats to stand up for themselves strongly are now saying Hillary should just STFU. I can't understand it. ANY mother would understand it instantly (as would a father, I would hope).

[Seabiscuit]

31. Finally! Someone with the cajones who says what needs to be said! BRAVO!

[chimpymustgo]

32. McCamy Taylor KO's H2O Man. Thank you for ripping his specious arguments to shreds.

Thank you.

[robbedvoter]

35. And as an added compliment - Krugman's piece agreeing with you

I will just link this DU thread called Clinton Rules
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4534473

[avrdream]

103. Yeah, I noticed that.

So true, "Clinton Rules" that the media uses.

[Iceburg]

36. Kick

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

37. Go MT!!! Bravo, well done and all that!

:kick:

:yourock:

[elixir]

38. Excellent post, thank you.

[Raffi Ella]

39. .

incredible post,thank you! :bluebox:

[Raffi Ella]

40. .

incredible post,thank you! :bluebox:

[blm]

41. Clintons used DIRTY TRICKS against their own PARTY and nominee. Sometimes KARMA is a bitch.

Historian Douglas Brinkley noticed the backstabbing in April2004:

http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Bill Clinton timed his 3 week book tour in summer 2004 to defend Bush's decisions on Iraq war against the left attacking him at the time (Kerry):
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

Carville SABOTAGED Ohio Dem voters on election night as WITNESSED by Woodward who was at the WH and heard it:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


And Hillary herself found a camera to side with Bush against Kerry in 2006:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg


NO DIRTY TRICKS, THERE, eh? Poor Clintons. Reaping what they have sown.

[libbygurl]

43. Once again, this continuing behaviour raises doubts about some 'Democrats' here on DU. nt

[Jennicut]

45. Argument about who is a real "Democrat"

We all are. If we are against the Rethug policies than we all are. I have no love for Tweety or Pat "Nazi" Buchanan. They are both hacks except Tweety is biased against Hillary and Buchanan keeps telling us Hillary will get the nomination. It all goes back to 2000 when the media treated Al Gore like total crap just because he was not seen as a good old boy who you could drink beer with. Nevermind that Monkey-boy was a "recovering" Alcoholic and Al Gore regularily liked to drink a beer. It was put out there and then all these made up lies and distortions were put out there as truth. 2004 saw swiftboating and the spread of the stories and lies about John Kerry which were disgusting but often repeated through the media over and over again. Now in 2008 we have these hack media figureheads commenting stupidly about the Democratic nomination. The Superdelegates will take it away from the people! Obama has momentum! Wait, he lost NY, NJ, Mass, and California. He's done. Wait, Hillary ran out of money. She's done. Hillary locked Bill in a basement and won't let him out. Oh, oh, Hispanics are only allowed to vote for Hillary because we said so and blacks can only vote for Obama because we said so. Women are for Hillary! Men are for Obama! And my personal favorite, a brokered convention. Its guarendammedteed! Ridiculous. Who takes these people seriously???? No wonder blogs and interent forums have gotten so big. I watch election coverage on CNN, MSNBC, and even Faux news (really hysterical with their pity party about no "true" conservative in the race, cry me a river) for pure laughs and to see the actual vote returns. That's about all they are good for. Reference Al Gore's book The Assualt on Reason. The MSM media is a joke.

[russian33]

48. k&R

[bpeale]

50. giving you a 3rd heart for this wonderful, well thought out, post

congratulations on a great journalistic endeavor. would that the MSM would do so well!!!

[bpeale]

51. giving you a 3rd heart for this wonderful, well thought out, post

congratulations on a great journalistic endeavor. would that the MSM would do so well!!!

[pnwmom]

52. Good, thoughtful post. Thank you!

[femrap]

54. K and R

What a thoughtful post. The hatred of women is so accepted in this country that people are not even aware they are doing it.

We're back in the '50's and '60's again...same issues plus more.

We do NEED a woman Prez.

[leftofthedial]

55. I need a towel.

[bigtree]

56. very nice effort

right over the heads of most of these opportunistic posters though

[Gman]

57. I've been saying this since December

and the Obama cult members just drink more KoolAid and keep chanting "Hope, Change..."

[McCamy Taylor]

106. Please, do not blame it on Obama or his true supporters. The Democratic Primary is under attack as I

will describe in my next journal. Obama and his true supporters are good Democrats just as Hillary and her true supporters are good Democrats. Karl Rove is using the techniques Pat Buchanan invented in 1972 (which he borrowed from the South) to divide and conquer us.

But we will not be divided and conquered.

This is why I refer to self styled Obama supporters . Because if the nonsense being typed by their fingers does not match their candidate's platform, then they are not true supporters in my book. They are Republican moles.

[DURHAM D]

59. K & R. eom

[Xipe Totec]

61. Excellent rant!

K&R

[meegbear]

74. K&R

[IronLionZion]

75. I didn't know I was doing Nixon's bidding.

Silly me, I thought I was voting for who I support, and that my vote would count. But that's before I found out about super delegates.

From now on, I'll just let you do all my voting for me. Thanks!

I don't believe gender or ethnicity should be the motivating factor for choosing a presidential candidate.

[rodeodance]

81. and a big REC

[desi]

82. Bravissimo!

Splendid McCamy Taylor. Kudos from a domestic violence advocate...

[NewHampster]

85. Stay up there

So the Oborgs can not read it.

:kick:

[avrdream]

92. That was absolutely AMAZING to read.

You put a lot of effort into correcting some of the misinformation that is being posted these days under the guise of political discussion.

69th rec (yes, I hold off in order to be number 69 as often as I can. :) )

[Lord Helmet]

96. Clintons have done race-baiting and don't deserve your tender mercies.

[robbedvoter]

118. This has nothing to do with tender mercies. Truth, more like it.

[Lord Helmet]

97. __

[Lord Helmet]

98. --

[Lord Helmet]

99. __

[SaveOurDemocracy]

102. Excellent OP, MT Thank you. K&R

[Old and In the Way]

107. When Edwards dropped out, my alliegance switched to Obama.

I think Hillary is capable and, if she wins the nomination, I'll be happy to vote for her. While I didn't like her IWR vote, I can overlook that. I didn't like her vote on Iran much, but I don't see her starting a war with Iran to placate the war-mongering Right. I do find Barrack to be inspirational and more likely to bring in independents and even Republicans.

No, my big problem with Hillary is that she, Bill, and the Terry McCauliffe-run DNC took a hike on Kerry and Edwards in 2004. I think they were willing to sacrifice that election to position her in 2008. Maybe I'm wrong, but I really don't remember them fighting for that election....so I'm not fighting for her nomination.

[HughMoran]

108. Thought-provoking post

Thanks!

[McCamy Taylor]

109. I just compared CNN and MSNBC simultaneous coverage of the primaries. It was mirror image

reflecting the economic concerns of their parent companies.

CNN backs the Democrats:AOL-Time Warner has a very big cable business. The Bush FCC has been busy trying to seize control of the cable industry--at the same that it wants to de-regulate all the other telecoms and media industries. The reason for doing this is they have promised AT&T favors in exchange for their part in warrantless wiretapping (which was actually started in early 2001 as a way to get blackmail info on politicians, journalists etc--no wonder Congress will not impeach). Now, AT&T wants to take over the nation's cable business, and the FCC is going to let them---unless AOL-Time Warner can help elected a Democratic president. In addition, John McCain has shown a willingness in the past to meddle with cable affairs, such as advocating A La Carte cable, which women and minority groups have complained would cause the demise of minority and women friendly channels.

MSNBC backs the Republicans : Actually only one GOPer, John McCain, because General Electric, their parent company is allied with the Pentagon and the Pentagon is stumping for McCain.

Today on MSNBC, there was another GOP strategy session in which Tweety and Co. discussed how McCain could get the Republican base behind him this fall with a conservative leader so that he could win, win, win. They did not show McCain speaking, since actually showing the man is the best way to decrease his support. Hearing an MSNBC pundit say that McCain "gives the finger" to the establishment (as one of them did today--I guess they have to use variations of "maverick" since they were caught using that word) is much more attractive than the man himself. And then they gleefully praised Obama.

Today on CNN, they had representatives for Obama and Hillary having a very long, strategy session about how the Dems would be best served in the general election. Carville summed it up by saying that he would get behind whichever one got the most votes because the most important thing was a Democratic victory. CNN also showed McCain speaking (and it was a major downer as usual. What is keeping that man alive?). And then they started in on their Look at that Huckabee go! coverage, with exactly the same degree of glee that MSNBC covers Obama.

And I realized something. CNN wants the Democrats to win. They don't care whether it is Hillary or Obama. A combination of the two would be fine if they win. And they just loooove Huckabee, because he is splitting the Reuplicans. MSNBC wants McCain to win. And they just looooove Obama because it gives them a way to split the Democrats.

And both of them have taken the stances they have for the economic best interests of their corporations.

[Redstone]

110. Pat Buchanan can talk about whatever the fuck he wants to talk about.

Remember that little thing called the First Amendment?

Redstone

[McCamy Taylor]

111. But why does any Democrat listen to election coverage that he does?

Why aren't Democrats up in arms that MSNBC would have a known partisan liar and cheater who conspired to subvert the democratic process and who advised Nixon to burn his tapes on TV attempting to influence voters?

We do not have to watch MSNBC. We can all watch CNN. Or ABC. They also want a Democrat in the WH, over some of the same cable issues. Forget CBS and FOX, they need a GOP FCC.

Buchanan can talk, but please, please, please do not listen to him or to anyone who may have been chatting with him in the locker room, unless you feel confident that you can spot GOP and anti-Democratic propaganda. The way I see it, David Schuster probably spent too much time with the "good old boys" and that is why he had his little tongue slipping accident on air. If he worked with professionals he would have had better examples to follow.

If we had an independent news media that responded to the wishes of the public rather than these propaganda organs that exist to protect the interests of their parent companies, people like Tweety and Buchanan would be toast, because of the viewer complaints. However, MSNBC exists to keep GE profits healthy, not to generate ratings. They do not care how many people watch as long as the "message" gets out. So, our job is not to be influenced by the message. Only listen if you are above the influence.

What we ought to do next election night is have a special thread where we play "spot the propaganda" for each network covering the election. People post the subliminal messages that the news networks and the guests and candidates are throwing out. It would be very fun and very informative.

[sueragingroz]

122. K & R /nt

[McCamy Taylor]

125. Thank you KO for showing solidarity w/ Buchanan by having him discuss GOP primary.

This is perfectly appropriate, and if MSNBC wants to keep Buchanan on their staff to discuss the GOP candidates and general issues, I have no problem with this. My objection is when they have him express opinions about the Democratic primary, given his history of meddling with the 1972 Democratic primary.

I hope Abrams keeps on eye on him, though.

[mckeown1128]

129. Another night another post...

telling us that we should vote for Hillay because she is a woman.

The more I see of woman hating America, the more convinced I become that we are not just ready for a woman president or vice president. We need it.

:eyes:

I see that you have convinced yourself that Hillary is the victom because she isn't gaining more traction.

[H2O Man]

131. kick

[H2O Man]

133. she-bop-a-lu-bop ....

[liberaltrucker]

134. Pure, unadulterated bullshit

Which I refuse to dignify with further comment.

[mojowork_n]

135. Like it or not, "good" talking heads or "bad", the pundits are on a leash.

The focus on individuals and personalities obscures what's not covered. What the media *never* wants you to think about.

From, "There's nothing mainstream about the corporate media"

by Harvey Wasserman

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12742

Excerpt:

"As we stumble toward another presidential election, it's never been more clear that our political process is being warped by a corporate stranglehold on the free flow of information. Amidst a virtual blackout of coverage of a horrific war, a global ecological crisis and an advancing economic collapse, what passes for the mass media is itself in collapse. What's left of our democracy teeters on the brink.

The culprit, in the parlance of the day, has been the "Mainstream Media," or MSM. But that's wrong name for it. Today's mass media is Corporate, not Mainstream, and the distinction is critical...."

In the same way that we're inundated by 24 hour ParisTalk, or BrittneyChat, news people (Keith Olberman, Eugene Robinson, & Rachel Maddow as well as Tweety & Buchanon) have a *free pass* to talk about the perceived quirks, or individual, human qualities of the candidates.

The "sizzle" is OK to talk about, but not the actual cut of meat.

Pundits aren't as free to probe for real substance or depth as we'd like to pretend they are. It's the exact opposite of the "camel in the tent." Call it the "black hole" news filter.

I'm not so sure how, exactly, it's been institutionalized or how it's enforced (black holes are invisible, astronomers have to perform calculations on the rotational speed of neighboring astronomical bodies to verify their presence), but the end result is usually universal avoidance of substantive discussion.

Honest, incisive, thoughtful analysis of the fundamental problems facing the country is too often "self-censored." But too often, the candidates themselves are part of that problem. Unless you're talking about the "un-electables", like Kucinich, or Gravel, or that Bizzaro World counterpart to Kucinich from The Other Side, the Republican anti-war candidate from Texas.

[robbedvoter]

136. I use "MSM" strictly for shorthand. Of course it's "corporate media"

No doubt about it. Does anyone remember when they called it "Liberal media?"
Does anyone remember when DU used to spell that station "MSGOP?"
Do people remember which candidate they favored in past elections - and in between them?

[robbedvoter]

140. And as we finally found out Schuster was a Faux liberal - let's link the info here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4546793&mesg_id=4546793
David Shuster ain't nuthin' but a worthless piece of Republican filth.

[McCamy Taylor]

141. That is too harsh. If he were a good little GOPer, he would be on the air at NBC/GE.

Like Tweety and Scarborough. The way that I always remind myself of the corporate part of the corporate media is I keep the whole name of the company in mind. GE/NBC. AOL-Time-Warner-CNN. Disney/ABC. Viacom-CBS. NewsCorp-Fox. That way you always know what economic motive they have. They never fail to spread propaganda that is in line with the current business needs of their parent company. Sometimes, the parent company does not want the Republicans to win. Then, you will see them turn their propaganda techniques against the GOP.

If you want to know what lies a news network or newspaper chain will tell, read the business news. The people who write the business news almost never lie. If they get caught lying they are out of a job, because business is too important in America. Money is holier than any god, and the people who deal in money every day want the straight facts, not propaganda. When the dispensers of business news try to give out propaganda, that is considered criminal fraud. That is why Fox News is going to sink the WSJ. No one will trust them.

Except for business news, none of what we get in the US is fair, intelligent, informed journalism, except for a very few shining stars that each organization keeps to make themselves look on the up and up---the way that crime families keep some kind of legitimate business to hide the source of their cash. So the NYT has Krugman. The WaPo has Ricks. MSNBC has Olbermann. The whole US has Sy Hersch, without whom we probably would have all have been sold into indebted servanthood to the Saudis or Chinese years ago.

But for every one of those, we have 50 or so ambitious people with mediocre talent who will do or say anything to get ahead in the dog eat dog world of journalism... where they are now outsourcing jobs to India.

[robbedvoter]

145. The thread title wasn't mine - but if he worked for Faux - he had to be a devoted GOP

Non-enthusiastic GOP-ers need not apply for a job to Faux - whether it is as CEO or cleaning lady.

[johnnydrama]

142. you can't really read

can you. Shuster is far from a worthless piece of Republican filth.

You however are not being able to comprehend what his carerr has been.

[mdmc]

143. you sleep in the bed that you create

[McCamy Taylor]

147. There is no "good U.S. journalism" today. Unless you are Sy Hersch or KO or Krugman--a superstar

you are at the mercy of the corporate masters. I feel for David Shuster. He is a very smart TV journalist. Lots of talent. Great at doing interviews. Cut from the same cloth as the old CBS 60 Minutes guys. It is no wonder that the RWers at MSNBC like Joe Scarborough have been waiting to take him down.

I hope Shuster gets a job with some other news organization that can put his talents to good use. He should go to work with Dan Rather. for Cuban.

[McCamy Taylor]

148. MSNBC still has Buchanan commenting on the Democratic Primary

The table which included Maddow, Buchanan, Robinson, Gregory was citing Virginia as proof that Obama now has the mass market appeal needed to get votes from a wide variety of candidates. Only Maddow suggested that Virginia might be a special case that does not apply to the rest of the country. So then someone else at the table mentions anecdotal evidence i.e some one's Latino friend said he would vote for Obama in the general, otherwise McCain. Everyone decided that the anecdotal evidence synched it.

This is what passes for meaningful intelligent political commentary in the US?

We need to stop having coaches teach social studies in school.

Because what I noticed is that this is the first time that McCain and Obama have taken the same states. Usually McCain and Hillary sweep the same states. Or Obama and Huckabee sweep the same states. Tonight, we get three DC area states that all go to Obama and McCain. Hmmm. Could there be a pattern here? Like maybe there are a lot of people who pay a lot of attention to politics? And are casting politically pragmatic votes as opposed to emotional votes or "rock star votes" or gender or racial solidarity votes?

Just a theory from the physician who has no political science or journalistic training, but it seems like something that that table full of self styled election specialists should consider before they go extrapolating from tonight's results.

[libbygurl]

150. With the exception of people like Krugman, Brancaccio and Moyers, there are no more journalists...

in the bigger US media. Why bother to have several news outlets (includes PBS, with it's Lehrer News Hour) when everyone is saying exactly the same thing? I don't get that same bandwagon reporting from the BBC/UK Telegraph/Guardian.

[Voltaire99]

149. Oh, what overblown nonsense.

Yikes, someone's got their ass a bad case of Hillary-itis!