0
   

Hillary Clinton for President - 2008

 
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Mar, 2008 05:37 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Lola wrote:
sozobe wrote:
Quote:
They appreciate that Clinton followed what she was told were the rules of how to run for president, only to find that still may not be enough.

"She was told you need experience, toughness and the ability to raise money, and yet the system changed the rules again," said Joan McLean, a top adviser to Geraldine Ferraro in her 1984 vice presidential run and a professor of political science at Ohio Wesleyan University.


Question

I've said this before, but as a feminist -- who thinks there is still plenty of sexism in America -- I think it's more empowering to vote for a woman who is also the best candidate than to vote for the second-best candidate simply because she's a woman.

I think that will happen before too long -- that there will be a woman candidate who is also the best in the field -- and I look forward to voting for that person.


However, I think it's your opinion about her being second best. I think she is the best. But that doesn't change the fact that she has not been treated with anything even resembling fair treatment by the media or the voters.


Bull crap. The media has been straight fawning over Clinton as the 'inevitable candidate' for a whole year. It's only when she began to make strategic blunder after blunder that they turned on her.

I think you ought to admit that if Hillary wasn't married to Bill, she wouldn't be anywhere close to the WH. Ever. That's a person feminists want to support - someone who gets where they are in life thanks to their spouse?

Cycloptichorn


You can admit that.........but I won't since I don't agree. Speak for yourself. If you don't see the prejudice, I don't know what to say other than to observe that you must be deaf dumb and blind.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Mar, 2008 05:39 pm
None of the three, thanks.

I don't know upon what you base your opinion that Hillary would be considered a viable candidate without her husband's previous position in the WH. My guess is, you don't base it upon anything at all.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Mar, 2008 07:19 pm
Hillary Pilloried?

Since mid-December, when the presidential candidates turned their full attention to the Iowa caucuses, Sen. Barack Obama has led the race for good press and Sen. Hillary Clinton has lagged the farthest behind. From Dec 16 through Jan 27 five out of six on-air evaluations of Obama (84%) have been favorable, compared to a bare majority (51%) of evaluations of Mrs. Clinton.

http://www.cmpa.com/election%20news%202_1_08.htm
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Mar, 2008 07:21 pm
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
Hillary Pilloried?

Since mid-December, when the presidential candidates turned their full attention to the Iowa caucuses, Sen. Barack Obama has led the race for good press and Sen. Hillary Clinton has lagged the farthest behind. From Dec 16 through Jan 27 five out of six on-air evaluations of Obama (84%) have been favorable, compared to a bare majority (51%) of evaluations of Mrs. Clinton.

http://www.cmpa.com/election%20news%202_1_08.htm


That's because he's a nicer guy then Hillary is, and she's running a negative campaign.

Not hard to figure this stuff out if you put a little thought into it

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Mar, 2008 07:43 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
That's because he's a nicer guy then Hillary is, and she's running a negative campaign.

Not hard to figure this stuff out if you put a little thought into it

Oh, bull.

Into zealotic territory now.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Mar, 2008 07:45 pm
nimh wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
That's because he's a nicer guy then Hillary is, and she's running a negative campaign.

Not hard to figure this stuff out if you put a little thought into it

Oh, bull.

Into zealotic territory now.


He's been there for a while now.

Now anyone who posts anything that he disagrees with just hasn't put any thought into it.

F$cking punk!
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Mar, 2008 07:46 pm
Sorry for saying that, but I've about had it with this guy.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Mar, 2008 07:55 pm
If you were sorry for saying it, why not just delete your post instead of following up?

Cyclo's a good guy. But argh.. well, he knows what my frustration with some of his posts is. Once people are in campaign mode, they can be a little hard to live with.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
That's because he's a nicer guy then Hillary is, and she's running a negative campaign.

Not hard to figure this stuff out if you put a little thought into it

Obama already enjoyed an outrageously positive bias in media coverage in January-May 2007, and Hillary wasnt running a negative campaign then, so thats obviously not the reason.

As for the nice guy argument, I guess it was OK that the media played up Bush and derided Gore in 2000 too, then, considering he was the one you'd want to have a beer with etc. You and I may have disagreed, but people thought he was the nicer guy then.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Mar, 2008 07:59 pm
nimh wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
That's because he's a nicer guy then Hillary is, and she's running a negative campaign.

Not hard to figure this stuff out if you put a little thought into it

Obama already enjoyed an outrageously positive bias in media coverage in January-May 2007, and Hillary wasnt running a negative campaign then, so thats obviously not the reason.

See the Yglesias blog post Soz copied here for a much more reasonable and still pro-Obama take.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Mar, 2008 09:22 pm
maporsche wrote:
Sorry for saying that, but I've about had it with this guy.


Go Cheney yourself. I post what I think and if ya don't like it, don't respond.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Mar, 2008 09:26 pm
nimh wrote:
If you were sorry for saying it, why not just delete your post instead of following up?

Cyclo's a good guy. But argh.. well, he knows what my frustration with some of his posts is. Once people are in campaign mode, they can be a little hard to live with.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
That's because he's a nicer guy then Hillary is, and she's running a negative campaign.

Not hard to figure this stuff out if you put a little thought into it

Obama already enjoyed an outrageously positive bias in media coverage in January-May 2007, and Hillary wasnt running a negative campaign then, so thats obviously not the reason.

As for the nice guy argument, I guess it was OK that the media played up Bush and derided Gore in 2000 too, then, considering he was the one you'd want to have a beer with etc. You and I may have disagreed, but people thought he was the nicer guy then.


I voted for Bush in 2000, so I would have been on the wrong side of that issue. Ah, the follies of youth...

Look, it's entirely possible - even probable - that Obama has had a better relationship with his media crew then Hillary has, b/c his campaign focuses more on keeping the media happy. Whether you call that Obama being a 'nice guy' or just covering his bases, I dunno.

I want you to look at this picture.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/03/03/gall.clintond.cnn.jpg

This is the travelling press corp for Hillary Clinton. In the Austin convention center. In the room Hillary assigned for them to report from. In the men's restroom.

And people wonder why the press gives her a hard time Laughing ? She gives them a hard time. She had a separate plane for the press to fly along on for a long time; she keeps them away.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Mar, 2008 09:31 pm
nimh wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
That's because he's a nicer guy then Hillary is, and she's running a negative campaign.

Not hard to figure this stuff out if you put a little thought into it

Oh, bull.

Into zealotic territory now.


Actually, I want to address this - Obama is running a more positive campaign. You think that it's surprising, or bias, that there is more positive coverage? And that I'm a zealot for noting it?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Mar, 2008 11:18 pm
Larry Craig is looking for interns. Prospects were told to slip their resumes under the door to the stall.

Leno
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2008 06:19 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Actually, I want to address this - Obama is running a more positive campaign. You think that it's surprising, or bias, that there is more positive coverage? And that I'm a zealot for noting it?

I already posted a link showing that Obama received overwhelmingly positive coverage back in Jan-May 2005, at which time Hillary's campaign was no more negative than Obama's.

Also, on the note of the travelling press corps, Obama's hardly an example of best practice either. He gives very little "chat" time on the press bus, for example, unlike McCain, who spends much of his travelling time just talking to them, and the press have been grumbling about that already. So thats no it either, or at least not sufficiently.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2008 08:10 am
Through my public school period in Canada, student elections for "class president" and "school president" began with junior high school (grades 7-9). The goal, of course, was to give kids some personal familiarity with elections and civic engagement (even if, as at the junior high level, the campaigning was mainly farcical..."If you elect me, I'll put a pool table in every classroom and we'll have Friday's off!")

But in retrospect, this all proved an important learning experience. For myself, two fundamentals moved to the fore:

1) the trappings of power aren't power (my democratic election arising out of a free vote from the students was quickly overturned by the real powers on the thread-bare argument that a chronic truant and classroom miscreant ought not to be so validated)

2) those personal qualities or skills which commonly result in popularity are a huge factor in elections . Consequently, people like me get into, or close to, positions of power.

Draw you own conclusions re popularity as metric.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2008 09:23 am
Hillary Goes Orwellian on Iraq
by Andrew Gumbel

Hillary Clinton may fancy she opposes the war in Iraq, but she has a funny way of showing it. On Monday night in Austin, she had this to say about what the United States military has done over the past five years:

"We have given them the gift of freedom, the greatest gift you can give someone. Now it is really up to them to determine whether they will take that gift."
There was nothing accidental about this line. She delivered it in response to two Iraq veterans introduced at a town hall meeting at the Austin Convention Center by her friend and campaign surrogate Ted Danson. She liked the line enough that she delivered it again a couple of hours later, at a campaign-closing rally at a basketball arena in south Austin.

"The gift of freedom" is, of course, a curious way to describe an unprovoked invasion and occupation causing hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and leaving just about every aspect of life chaotic and fraught with daily dangers. To then lay responsibility for the mess on the Iraqis -- we did our bit, now you do yours -- is the worst kind of dishonesty, a complete abdication of moral principles. It's the sort of thing George Bush has said to justify his decision both to launch the invasion in the first place and then stay the course -- a course Hillary Clinton has spent many months telling primary and caucus voters she thinks was misconceived from the start.

Why, then, is she taking on the president's rhetorical tropes? Could it be she didn't -- and doesn't -- oppose the Iraq war quite as much as she's been letting on?

George Orwell rightly warned us about the way politicians use words like "freedom" when such usage begs more questions than it answers. "Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way," he wrote in his famous essay Politics and the English Language. "That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different."

Clinton's audience certainly thought that what she was doing was standing four-square behind the veterans. That was they way they took it, and applauded her accordingly. Perhaps, though, before they make their choices tomorrow, the voters of Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont should reread her words and ask themselves what the hell she really meant.

link
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2008 10:31 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
nimh wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
That's because he's a nicer guy then Hillary is, and she's running a negative campaign.

Not hard to figure this stuff out if you put a little thought into it

Oh, bull.

Into zealotic territory now.


Actually, I want to address this - Obama is running a more positive campaign. You think that it's surprising, or bias, that there is more positive coverage? And that I'm a zealot for noting it?


Still on this subject, Glenn Greenwald, Digby and TPM's Greg Sargent all agree that "the media's been harsher on Hillary than on Obama."

Greenwald said that that Hillary "has borne the far greater brunt of media hatred and hostility over the last year." Digby wrote that "it's a fact that Clinton has received much harsher treatment than Obama." And Sargent writes that "in a very broad sense the press and punditry's treatment of Hillary has often been unfair on a very fundamental level, sometimes pathologically so.

That's all in this blog post, which proceeds to ask an even more important question: will the media now learn entirely the wrong lesson from that?

Quote:
It's Not About "Toughness." It's About "Fairness."

March 3, 2008

Both Glenn Greenwald and Digby today weighed in on the question of whether the media's been harsher on Hillary than on Obama -- and they both answered with a resounding Yes.

But both of them also add a crucial dimension to the discussion that's been absent thus far: The key point that media "toughness" is a vapid, almost meaningless term that doesn't get at the core problem here.

Greenwald, for his part, says that he agrees that Hillary "has borne the far greater brunt of media hatred and hostility over the last year." He adds that when media figures "start talking about how they have to subject Obama to `scrutiny,' too, they don't mean that they're going to re-evaluate the trashy, vapid coverage they applied to Clinton and start examining his record, his positions, his views, etc." Instead, he predicts, they'll do the same to Obama that they did to Hillary.

Meanwhile, Digby, in an email to Greenwald, writes: "It's a fact that Clinton has received much harsher treatment than Obama." She suggests that media people will reach exactly the wrong conclusion about their own failings: "Instead of reevaluating their bias against Clinton and examining their sexism in general, they are now going to rectify matters by going after Obama on a bunch of irrelevant, superficial stuff to `make up' for their transgressions."

Exactly right. The key question here isn't, or shouldn't be, whether the press has been "equally tough" on both candidates. Rather, the question is whether the press has been equally fair to them. The question is whether both candidates have been treated with similar measures of professionalism, judiciousness, even sanity.

And the simple truth is that they haven't. Though I agree with Matthew Yglesias' argument that the picture isn't completely clear cut, and I agree with Greg Mitchell's case that the media could suddenly shift gears and write a Hillary-comeback narrative, in a very broad sense the press and punditry's treatment of Hillary has often been unfair on a very fundamental level, sometimes pathologically so. No other candidate has had to endure the amount of media smut that's been hurled her way. No matter who you support, the quality of the coverage of Hillary is not a state of affairs anyone should be happy about.

And this brings me to a point I've been meaning to make here. Those who insist that Hillary deserves fair treatment from the media have been subjected to a tremendous amount of abuse by a tiny and unrepresentative minority of Obama supporters who see such a demand as nothing but Hillary shilling, or "Shillary," as they like to put it.

But as Greenwald and Digby both note, it's not hard to imagine that should Obama become the nominee, he may find himself subjected to the same sort of media treatment, if not quite in degree, that Obama supporters defended when it was directed at Hillary. If and when Obama supporters start griping about this, as they should, then the complaints directed at those insisting on fair treatment of Hillary will in retrospect look shortsighted indeed.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2008 10:40 am
bravisimo!
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 12:47 am
So who's got the mo now? Go Hillary!
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Mar, 2008 12:51 am
Lola please join me in a glass of virtual champagne for our girl...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/06/2025 at 08:29:30