The 2000 Code

It’s 2000 all over again in more ways than one.

For seven years Americans have huddled in long desperate lines waiting to cross the bridge to the 21st century. It’s the bridge that Bill and Hillary Clinton and Al Gore built. Al Gore tried to cross the bridge but instead was run over by a news delivery truck filled with menacing clowns. Hillary Clinton is poised at the entrance to the bridge, ceremonial scissors in hand, ready to cut the seven year old ribbon. The news delivery truck is revving its engines.

Is 2007 the new 2000? In 2000 Big Media clowns echoed by Nader and the Naderites blared their right-wing manufactured lies. Together these interest groups villified tan suit wearing Al Bore Gore while good Democrats either did not understand the full insidious perfidy done to their candidate, or stood by, silently watching .

DailyHowler from July 2006:

She’s going to get the Al Gore treatment supersized. “She,” of course, is Hillary Clinton. She’ll be trashed by the press, just like Gore (only more), the commenter predicts in this note. That may—or may not—happen. On the one hand, it may be harder now to slander a Dem in the way the mainstream press slandered Gore; there is now a rambunctious liberal web which is quick to respond to misstatements, as in this current instance. On the other hand, a large part of the “liberal” web is now made up of loudmouth know-nothings who seem all too eager to demonize pols of the center or center-left. They already have their negative nicknames for a long string of major Dem pols; with people like these name-calling Big Dems, it may turn out that the next Dem nominee is demonized more from the “left” than from the right—or from the press. Even if it wants to, the press corps might not have to demonize the next Dem nominee. We’ll dumbly perform that chore for them.

And of course, we “liberals” have already hurt ourselves in one important respect. That commenter knows what happened to Gore, but most American voters do not. They’ve never heard a word about the War On Gore, because a wide array of major “liberals” have simply refused to discuss it. (For one example, Atrios rarely mentions this life-changing part of our recent history. Kevin Drum doesn’t mention it, either.) Result? When kooky stories arise about Clinton, they produce no suspicion on the part of the public; most voters have no context for such suspicion. Voters will see such reports as random events—because they haven’t been told about the recent relevant history. In our bizarre silence, we’ve sacrificed an important piece of argument. We’ve sacrificed the ability to tell voters this: Omigod! There they go again!

Will the Naderites (ensconsed in the Big Blog megaphones) and self-interested Big Blog owners defend the Democratic nominee? We doubt it. Will the “liberal” media demonize Democrats? Cue Frank Rich, stage right, repeating, as we wrote yesterday, every Naderite cliche while not even once mentioning Big Media’s big complicity in the selection of George W. Bush:

What I saw on television last Sunday was the incipient second coming of the can’t-miss 2000 campaign of Al Gore.

That Mr. Gore, some may recall, was not the firebrand who emerged from defeat, speaking up early against the Iraq war and leading the international charge on global warming. It was instead the cautious Gore whose public persona changed from debate to debate and whose answers were often long-winded and equivocal (even about the Kansas Board of Education’s decision to ban the teaching of evolution). Incredibly, he minimized both his environmental passions and his own administration’s achievements throughout the campaign.

He, too, had initially been deemed a winner, the potential recipient of a landslide rather than a narrow popular-vote majority. The signs were nearly as good for Democrats then as they are now. The impeachment crusade had backfired on the Republicans in the 1998 midterms; the economy was booming; Mr. Gore’s opponent was seen as a lightweight who couldn’t match him in articulateness or his mastery of policy, let alone his eight years of Clinton White House experience.

Frank Rich, cheaply imitating Patrick Healy, also included talk about Hillary’s laugh while simultaneously and without self-awareness demanding a substantive issue based “firebrand” candidacy. DailyHowler earns cheers from us today as it dissects Rich and Russert and sets the record straight on Gore.

Now Mrs. Clinton is erupting in a laugh with all the spontaneity of an alarm clock buzzer. Mocking this tic last week, “The Daily Show” imagined a robotic voice inside the candidate’s head saying, “Humorous remark detected — prepare for laughter display.” However sincere, this humanizing touch seems as clumsily stage-managed as the Gores’ dramatic convention kiss.

Jon Stewart has a right, if not duty, to poke fun at candidates by doctoring editing tapes for comic effect. Frank Rich, losing track of the difference between comedy and dramatic reality regurgitated Stewart’s fun on the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times. Patrick Healy clued his audience about Hillary by using the pejorative “cackle” to describe Hillary’s laugh. Karen Tumulty at Time magazine puzzled “Am I the only one who wonders whether that’s a word that would be used about a male candidate?”

Joan Vennochi of the Boston Globe echoed our sensible comments:

HENS CACKLE. So do witches. And, so does the front-runner in the Democratic presidential contest.

Former Bill Clinton adviser Dick Morris recently described Hillary Clinton’s laugh as “loud, inappropriate, and mirthless. . . . A scary sound that was somewhere between a cackle and a screech.” Politico’s Ben Smith referred to Clinton’s “signature cackle.” Conservative radio hosts routinely play Clinton’s “cackle” on their radio shows.

Yet according to a new poll, the cackler is leading her closest competitor in New Hampshire by 20 points. As a result, her challengers made her their target during last week’s Hanover, N.H., debate.

Any woman who has ever been the only female in the room knows the guys are always waiting for that perfect moment – the one that makes the woman look silly, stupid, weepy or best of all, witchy. The men running against Clinton are still waiting for such an opportunity.

So far, all they have to work with is her laugh. The cackler is smooth, well-scripted, and undeterred by their now-familiar attacks. [snip]

Not too long ago, Clinton’s cleavage attracted all the attention. She wore a tank top under a blazer and her modest confirmation of breasts became the subject of serious presidential campaign analysis. Now, the critique is moving from chest to throat, and to a sound associated with female fowl. What’s next, speculation that Clinton will cry if Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, says something mean about her? [snip]

The media and her opponents can marginalize Clinton all they want. But the polls indicate the voters are listening to the candidate’s words, not to her laugh. Until her opponents start saying something to impress the voters more than she does, Clinton remains the front-runner and presumptive nominee. Her standing is enhanced with each debate. They play to her discipline and command of issues and the stage. That doesn’t mean Clinton can’t be successfully challenged and knocked off stride.

But her opponents have yet to figure out how to do it. Giggle, giggle.

With Al Gore it was Maria Hsia and the Buddist Temple fundraising “scandal”. Hsia was about illegal “straw donors”. The Justice Department decided Al Gore was a “victim” of the Hsi Lai “scandal”. With Hillary, and the never mentioned other Democrats and non-profit organizations he gave money to, it is Hsu. Same story, same outcome, same Big Media attacks.

The Politico collects the sniping and parrots Jon Stewart:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) last week flew into a sudden burst of media wind shear. After months of mostly rosy portrayals of her campaign’s political skill, discipline and inevitability, the storyline shifted abruptly to evasive answers, shady connections and a laugh that sounded like it was programmed by computer.

Clinton’s campaign attributed the change of weather to the vagrant attention span of the national news media, combined with the professional interest of reporters and analysts in ensuring a competitive race for the Democratic nomination.

But the intensity and sharp personal edge of much of the commentary was a reminder of a thread in American political culture reaching back to the early 1990s: the deep and mutual skepticism between the Clintons and the elite media.

Hillary Clinton, like her husband, can take solace in the fact she has survived and prospered amid peevish coverage from New York and Washington news organizations — stories that often echo the buzz in social circles in both cities.

This week’s stories, however, all in various ways highlighted what her strategists and independent analysts have recognized as a genuine challenge for her in 2008: overcoming perceptions that she is a politician so infused with ambition and artifice that she can not connect with ordinary voters.

The New York Times ran a Sunday story about what it called “the Cackle” — it is actually closer to a guffaw — suggesting that it is the senator’s technique for disarming persistent questioners.

In the same issue of the Times, columnist Frank Rich pondered whether she is too cautious and contrived in a piece headlined, “Is Hillary Clinton the New Old Al Gore?” On the facing page, columnist Maureen Dowd argued that, “Without nepotism, Hillary would be running for the president of Vassar.”

The day before, columnist Gail Collins had called one of Clinton’s answers from Wednesday’s debate “an excellent example of how to string together the maximum number of weasel words in one sentence.”

The Associated Press ran an unusually harsh post-debate analysis called “Clinton’s evasions,” with the headline: “Evasiveness on issues contradicts image Clinton seeks to project as strong leader.”

And Washington Post columnist David S. Broder complained about her “dodginess” in the debate, and many outlets mocked her answer to who she would root for in a Cubs-Yankees World Series: “Would probably have to alternate sides.”

Even Jon Stewart bared fangs on “The Daily Show,” splicing together clips from Sunday morning shows that his network, Comedy Central, calls “creepy delayed laughter” on a segment called “Hillary’s Laugh Track.” He suggested the candidate was bionic. [snip]

The flak comes at a time when Clinton is dominating polls, with averages kept by Real Clear Politics showing Clinton 17 points ahead of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) nationally, 21 points in New Hampshire and 24 points in Florida.

A Newsweek poll released Saturday found that while Clinton led among all Iowa Democratic voters, “Obama enjoys a slim lead” among likely Democratic caucus-goers. [snip]

The spate of stories does indeed reflect an element of media groupthink, and the tendency of the political press to pile on, to switch storylines to make the coverage more exciting, and to find new twists on broad themes that have been articulated in a few high-profile news outlets.

But in the case of Hillary Clinton, there is a personal dimension. Dating back to the 1992 campaign, she and Bill Clinton were stung by the coverage of his extramarital adventures and her role in the Whitewater land deal.

Once in the White House, both were disdainful of what they saw as the tendency of Washington and New York journalists to cover personality, political process and scandal over substance. Even late in his presidency, establishment journalists like Howell Raines at The New York Times and Sally Quinn of The Washington Post could provoke profane outbursts from Bill Clinton — attitudes that aides say Hillary Clinton usually shares.

Last week before the Hanover, New Hampshire debate a Big Media consensus emerged during MSNBC’s day long trashing of Hillary: Barack Obama was not attacking Hillary Clinton with sufficient brutality and instead, due to his passivity, preventing other candidates, like John Edwards, from having the opportunity to get an open whack at Hillary.

Subsequently, with his late week acceptance of public matching funds, it became apparent that John Edwards would not have the financial resources to beat Hillary either. The Bitchy Boys of Big Media, aided by two sad clownish women, decided to take Hillary down. They will keep trying and silence from voters is their best ally.

In the presidential election of 2000, George W. Bush, in just about all his campaign speeches, would raise his right hand and utter the dramatic line “I will restore honor and dignity to the White House”. When was the last time the American television viewing public has seen that videotape?

Was the “restore honor and dignity to the White House” along with appropriate ominous music ever broadcast during the Scooter Libby trial? When Karl Rove was exposed as a leaker of Valerie Plame as C.I.A. covert operative did we see the videotape? When Karl Rove was shown to have pushed prosecutor firings for political purposes? Has the video been broadcast during any of the myriad scandals and ethical misbehaviors of the Bush White House? During Alberto Gonzales? The many Justice Department resignations and scandals? Miers failed appointment? Fifth Amendment pleas by officials? E-mail accounts impropriety and disappearances? Walter Reed? The Scooter Libby conviction? The Scooter Libby pardon? Abuses of civil liberties? Cronyism? Brownie? Wolfowitz and Iraq? Wolfowitz and girlfriend? Matteo Fontana and the student loan company stock? Lurita Doan and the Rove luncheon? Julie MacDonald, and the spiked recommendations at Fish and Wildlife Services? Kenny boy Lay and Enron? Philip Cooney, the then and now oil lobbyist and the butchered global warming reports? Darleen Druyun and the conviction on conflict of interest rules? Jack Abramoff? J. Steven Griles, and the guilty plea? David H. Safavian and the 180 months imprisonment? Roger Stillwell, and his guilty plea? Claude Allen, convicted thief? O’Neill non-divestiture of aluminum stock and subsequent huge profits? Rove approval of the Intel merger and subsequent profits on his stock?

Instead of repeated viewings of Bush fantasy “honor and dignity” contrasted with Bush reality scandals – normally a cable news delight we are afflicted with assaults on Gore’s sighs at the debates and his changes of wardrobe and Love Story and his “invention” of the internet Hillary Clinton’s laugh in the pages of the ‘liberal’ New York Times.

The Bitchy Boys of Big Media will not crown another clown prince. We’ve broken the code. This time we won’t remain silent.


36 thoughts on “The 2000 Code


    Gallup analysis of Who Likes Hillary and Who Dislikes Hillary (7000 interviews):

    Americans’ opinions about New York Sen. and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton mirror the underlying partisan divide in the American population today. According to an analysis of a special aggregated sample of more than 7,000 interviews in which Americans were asked to rate Clinton, all conducted between June and September of this year, the public is split precisely down the middle when asked whether its opinions of Clinton are favorable or unfavorable.

    Once again, it is apparent that party affiliation and ideology are the major factors driving Americans’ opinions of Clinton. The groups at the bottom of the graph — that is, those with the lowest favorable opinions of Clinton — consist of Republicans and conservatives.

  2. This is like reading the old Media Whores Online site. If you are one and the same – welcome back, we’ve missed you most beastfully. If you aren’t one and the same, congrats – you’ve risen to a very high standard and I expect to love you as dearly as I loved them.

    There’s a very particular kind of punch being thrown here, and it is one that Democratic candidates are sorely in need of. I hope you stick around above and beyond this campaign.

  3. Thanks basement angel. Any comparison to Media Whores Online is an honor. Thanks. They were pioneers. Compare that wonderful site to the Big Blogs of today and we know how much we have lost.

  4. I soooo miss Media Whores Online. That was one of my favorite sites and the first I visited everyday. This is my new No. 1. Good catch, Basement Angel.

    I still go back to my criticism yesterday that big media pundits sit around and engage in circle jerk journalism. they create the story and becoe part of the context. Even the Plame-Wilson story became about Matt and Judy and Novacula instead of the fact a covert agent was outted for revenge by the VP’s office with Bush’s knowledge and permission. That’s a major problem. I mean how often do I have to see Bob Woodward prostitute himself in an interview for his latest book? Or Bernstein? Or hear about Russert’s goofy father again? And why does a site like HuffPo spend more time giving nuts like Gravel a page rather than the leading nominee?

    It’s because it’s their club and only they get to jerk each other off. I’m sick of it personally of it. Why don’t they cover something substantive for once? How about attacking Bwak for violating the no-campaign pledge in FL? Or looking at Dodd’s recommedations on the sub-prime crisis which are actually good? Less than 5% of the folks I know knew ENDA was up on a vote last week. Less than 1/2 of them knew what it was. But I guarantee you almost everyone knew Keifer Sutheland got another DUI.

    This is just sad.

  5. Congratulations Admin. I believe you have indeed broken the code. And so have some of the credible media people like Joan Venocchi. Would that there were more like her.

    What struck me as I read this piece, not just as a Hillary supporter, but as an American concerned as most of us are about crossing that bridge into the twenty first century is what a disservice they are doing to the country.

    The single purpose of these MSM types is to hold court, put forward the questions they deem important, demand answers on their terms and be the final arbiter of decisions made in this democracy.

    When a candidate doesn’t always play by their rules, and opens a direct dialogue with the electorate, they feel threatened and go on the war path. (Russert’s hypothetical still sticks in my craw).

    Maurine Dowd is one example. As a staff reporter, she was reasonably objective, whereas today she just spits venom. First, she did the attack piece, then made her little trip to Hollywood (one more drink and I will be under the host–figuratively speaking), then she prods Obama (where is his hook?) and when he fails to respond she goes back on the attack dismissing Hillary’s lifelong commitment to public service (nepotism). She is no Dorothy Parker.

    Your blog today is a call to arms for democrats and independents alike.

  6. way to go.

    I believe there are 3 websites out there these days serving our interests, the daily howler, media mattersand this one. Anybody who believes that the general election is gonna be a walk in better read these sites and prepare themsekves to get in the fight or get ready to see the gop retain the white house.

    Write the nyt ombudsman and DEMAND an apology for the sexist series of columns this week. Dont put comments – attack back straight at them. This is not gonna stop unless we fight back.

    this is from on saturday – pre Rich and Dowd – and yes it will get even worse – expect it…

    Sexism (with a capital S)

    The New York Times actually published a whole article yesterday about Hillary Clinton’s laugh. I’m sorry, not her laugh, her “Cackle.” With a capital C. A totally negative, gendered word:

    cack·le (kkl)
    v. cack·led, cack·ling, cack·les
    1. To make the shrill cry characteristic of a hen after laying an egg.
    2. To laugh or talk in a shrill manner.

    No, this isn’t Rush Limbaugh or Fox News using a gendered description of her laugh. It’s the nation’s newspaper. Aren’t journalists supposed to be better at finding original and creative ways of describing things? “Cackle” falls back on stereotypes. So does “giggle,” which is another descriptor used in the article.

    The article goes on to discuss how Hillary laughs at inappropriate moments. Wouldn’t you, if you were trying to counteract the “ball-busting bitch” image bestowed upon you by both conservative commenters and the mainstream media? If she’s all serious, all the time, she feeds the stereotype. But she can’t seem to get ahead by trying to infuse more humor, either. She’s addressed this herself, after she laughed at her own joke about her husband’s infidelities, and reporters followed up with serious questions:

    “You guys!” she said to reporters, chuckling, after the third question on the topic. “I thought I was funny. You guys keep telling me, lighten up, be fun. Now I get a little funny, and I’m being psychoanalyzed.”

    No kidding. Psychoanalyzed and basically called a witch.

    Slate has a slightly better take on the coverage of Hillary’s laugh, one that at least acknoweldges the sexism inherent in descriptions like “cackle” and “giggle”:

    Clinton’s ideological enemies have had fun, too. Matt Drudge posted a sound clip of it, and Sean Hannity raised the pressing question of whether Clinton’s laughter was presidential. Hannity should be reminded that George Bush’s Beavis laugh was such an accurate imitation of the teenage cartoon reprobate he should have had to pay royalties. Like all aspects of the Clinton campaign, there’s sexism in the giggle critique: Women can only laugh in certain preapproved ways. Historically, men have categorized women’s laughter as a way to diminish them—they either cackle like a witch, or they titter like a schoolgirl.

    No shit. If they weren’t using witch or schoolgirl allusions to describe the laugh, they’d no doubt be calling it “mannish.”

  7. Dem Dem, you are right on regarding the inherent sexism related to the Laugh attacks on Hillary. A woman laughing is just plain inappropriate…humor is still a man’s world. Hillary’s challenge in which she is succeeding dramatically in, is HUGE. Showing humor, strength, leadership, and not looking mannish in this country is just about impossible. And the comments I have witness from the haters on Daily Nuts are often inherently SEXIST too. I feel like I should apologize for bringing up the S word again…but I won’t. It is real. And I am tired of it not being ok to talk about it. That’s part of the problem. And I can hear the sighs as I write, but so what.

  8. Any idea when Hillary’s camp will announce what she raised? Obama brought in $20 million. Remember, $3 million-plus of that was from the Oprah fundraiser alone.

  9. Update: And there has been some very good pushback on this issue from Hillary supporters on Big Blogs, which needs to be commended.

    Dem, Dem:

    Imagine if a male presidential candidate was referred to as not walking into a room but “swishing” into a room. That language would be very loaded. African-Americans understand very well the use of coded language as well.

    BTW, DailyHowler today is a must read and a valuable resource for the future.

    Several readers have already sent emails and called reporters. Here’s contact information for the NYTimes:

    Maureen Dowd
    (202) 862-0300

    Frank Rich
    (212) 556-1350

    Patrick Healy
    (212) 556-1234.

    Letters to the Editor:
    (212) 556-1831

    Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman & Publisher:
    (212) 556-3588

    Scott H. Heekin-Canedy
    President, General Manager

    Gail Collins
    (212) 556-1875

  10. BTW, on Hillary Headlines we posted the story of Hillary supporting Jim Webb legislation forcing Bush to get authorization from Congress before an Iran attack.

  11. i f**ing can’t watch harball anymore. is mathews a obama for president employee? he trashes hillary’s so called “cackle” then called obama “hope”.

  12. well, since I now have about 6 different gmail accounts because of needing to start a new one each time I rejoin Kos after getting kicked off…

    me, myself and I, along with their pseudonyms, will now get to work…

    thanks for the email addresses. I had sent one to the omsbudsman already, but now I see I have more to do…like…

    think up very expressive ways to tell em we’re PISSED!

  13. …by the way…we hears that – the man of the “cackle”, Patrick Healey, doesn’t actually “walk” into a room….

    …not that theres anything wrong with that of course…

  14. Not sure how meaningful these endorsements are, but still nice to see this one.

    OAKLAND, Calif.—Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won the endorsement Monday of Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums, a widely admired black leader who had anguished for months over whether to back Sen. Barack Obama, Clinton’s leading Democratic presidential rival.
    The endorsement came as Clinton and Dellums toured a vocational classroom at Laney College in Oakland, where Clinton announced that Dellums will head her campaign’s Urban Policy Committee.

    The Clinton campaign spent months assiduously courting Dellums, a former U.S. Marine who served 27 years in Congress and once headed the powerful House Armed Services Committee. Dellums told associates he was excited by the energy of Obama’s campaign, but he withheld his endorsement longer than many other black leaders.

    But Clinton’s willingness to embrace his recommendations on how to improve urban America, and her credentials on foreign and military affairs, won Dellums over.

    “Her commitment to urban communities and her belief that the federal government must build strong partnerships have earned her my support and endorsement,” Dellums said in a prepared statement before their appearance here. “I thought long and hard about this decision and have concluded that our country needs Hillary’s strength and experience to lead us forward.”

    Dellums and Clinton also have longstanding political ties. Dellums took over the chairmanship of the House Armed Services Committee when former President Bill Clinton tapped

  15. Another way to spin vs Hillary–write only positives about the competition in your article ignoring any questions or analysis about the evidence you are quoting. Several of the statements in this MSNBC article sound like they came directly from an Obama campaign memo. I’m really getting an education from all you here about the media. I agree with the poster above–thank goodness there are rational people here trying to get to the actual truth of things.

    As to this article–if this is the best Obama can do then he himself must be realizing at this point that he’s running out of steam. How many times has he tried to make Hillary’s 2002 vote an issue? It’s not exactly emerging as a factor in the race yet he keeps wasting time on it. Whatever happened to all the “hope” talk? FYI: In the latest ad he’s running in my area (Minnesota/Iowa) he says he’s going to “fix Washington”.

  16. hello all…

    I am completely tuned out of cable and the NT times nuisane…..their reporters i mean “gossipers” can take their opionions whereever they want to…I am gald I do not pay for cable and decide for my self what I want to read….

    but on another story, that dellums endorsement is HUGE!….yesterday at the club44 event, we were thinking why he was not there…even as an inited member…
    we had gavin newsom – sf mayor, barbara lee, oaklalnd congressional rep, dianne feinsten, and others..of variuos ethnic background…

    it was fabulous event…14,000 rally….and I an still tired…i did manage to “promote” hillaryis44 web site…..

    BUT this DELLUMS endorsement is huge…even surpasses yesterday’s event…dellum was specially asked by the oakland resident to seek mayoral election after retirement because of problems in that town…he is iconic in that african american and the oakland and surrounding communities….

  17. Zogby has a NH poll for right wing outlet ‘NewsMax’.

    Clinton 38 (28)
    Obama 23 (26)

    Zogby constantly gives Clinton low #s, so this is very good news. What really strikes me is a question on Hush. Right wingers, Edwards and Obama won’t be very happy about the results:

    As news begins to break on how the candidates did at fund–raising for the third quarter of the year, the latest NewsMax/Zogby survey shows that Hillary Clinton’s fund–raising connection to indicted contribution bundler Norman Hsu has had little effect on her overall standing.

    Will Hush-Clinton fund-raising connection make you more likely or less likely to vote for her?
    Less likely 11%
    More likely 11%
    No difference 78%

    It’s a big fat net ZERO.

    I’m sure fix news will likely poll ‘cackles’ next time.

  18. Everyone see this arrogant display?

    “Barack Obama will on Tuesday step up his challenge to Hillary Clinton, the Democratic party’s presidential frontrunner, by staging 18 simultaneous rallies across the US to mark the fifth anniversary of his opposition to the Iraq war.”

  19. New Rasmussen SC poll has Hillary up 13 over Obama. Last month, her lead was 8.

    A new Rasmussen Reports automated survey of likely primary voters in South Carolina (conducted 9/26 through 9/27) finds:

    Among 567 Democrats, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama (43% to 30%) in a statewide primary; Sen. John Edwards trails at 10%.

  20. kostner, i used to subscribe to newsmax emails but it is so rabid rightwing(anti-hillary espeacially) i could not stand it anymore. i subscribe to all the major caimpaigns emails gop and dems to see what imfo they are dishing out. anyway it is another great poll for hillary.

  21. mrs. smith, obama is desperate. he is grasping at straws, trying anything in the book to get traction in the race. it will not work. his advisors in his camp and media(mathews) are trying to egg him on to get nuclear against hillary.

  22. My mother is a strong Hillary supporter and always watches The View.

    She informs me that today’s guest was Chris Matthews.

    According to her, he spoke well of Hillary and behaved for once like a choirboy.

    Believe it or not.

  23. wbboei, I think he goes after Hillary for ratings. Bashing her is easy because virtually everyone in the MSM does it.

  24. terrondt, in the msnbc article, it says, Obama is putting on these demostration in 18 states.

    He’s going to Iowa tomorrow. These demostrations will not be in 18 states they will be in 18 Locations in Iowa! That is where the name taking will take place. They collect e-mails from everyone attending his events.

    This will be his prepatory for the Iowa Caucus. Between now and then, he will be on top of the people attending these rallys over the next 4 days and start gathering his suppoters to caucus for him.

    It doesn’t make sense any other way. The advertised 18 states is a misnomer. He’s going to be cruising Iowa visiting 18 locations for the next 4 days gathering his followers in prep for the Caucus..

    well, I know what I’d do… but it’s not up to me..

    Mrs. S.

  25. We are now at a dramatic moment in the campaign and Obama’s mettle is about to be tested.

    Ripublicans, MSM and contributors alike are telling him to go negative–to move the polls.

    All his instincts tell him not to do so. Let other people do his dirty work. But now, suddenly, it all comes down to him, and him alone.

    If he takes the bait, then he must live with the consequences.

    What if he goes negative and it fails? Does he kill his future in the party? Does he destroy his brand?

    What if he goes negative and it succeeds? Does he pave the way for another George Bush? Does he destroy his country in the process?

    In his heart, he must know he has an experience deficit, and that a speech in the Illinois Senate is not equivalent to a vote in the U.S. Senate. In moment of candor he acknowledged as much.

    And if he is the patriot I hope he is, and not some pawn of MSM, then surely he knows that Hillary is the one, and his time will come later.

    If you ever saw the John Wayne movie “The Searchers” (which Speilberg called the greatest movie ever made), then you will likely recall the definition of a Texican: ” A man out on a limb”.

    Right now, Obama is a Texican. Let us hope he handles it the right way.

  26. Paula, I agree with you. He does it for ratings.

    And yet, there is a part of me that sees him as a wild eyed Celt in the Russel Crowe movie “The Gladiator” who strips off his clothes, paints himself up and goes charging toward the Roman Legions with a raised spear and a blood curdling cry, only to be cut down. For me, that is a happy ending.

  27. Mrs. Smith,

    I think it’s a rather bizarre idea for him to ask his followers to ‘celebrate’ some anti-war speech five years ago. It’s really very odd. It has a cult like feeling. It sounds like the typical behavior of a foreign dictator to do such things.

    If they are not careful, this can easily backfire when MSM decides to jump in.

  28. Hi folks, I think this demonstration idea is pretty strange, too. Isn’t the point to stop the war? I mean you can only talk about that original vote for so long before people start to suspect it’s all about you and not about the war at all. It seems so artificial to be replaying ancient history rather than talking about what’s happenin’ now and workin’ with it accordingly. It’s the same tired ole rhetoric and it’s surely not an agenda for change. It feels like things got turned up a notch just recently here and things are startin’ to get ugly. mollyj

  29. And before any of those cult followers become too entranced with his anti-war speech, they should be reminded of the subsequent New York magazine article where he conceded that he did not know how he would have voted if he had been in the U.S. Senate at the time–truth to tell. . .

  30. Obama’s call for a nation-wide celebration of his anti-war speech is merely the prelude to his grand plan to meet with foreign dictators in the first year of his presidency without preconditions.


  31. Hey Kostner,
    How do you think Hillary’s campaign is going? What is your assessment of her fall campaign? The next 3 months are crucial as we all know. I hope everything goes well for her.

  32. Kostner, yes everything Obama does from this point on is truly bizarre. He would have had street cred had he shown himself a knowledgeable, passionate, debator coming on strong blowing his rivals out of the water.

    Had he outperformed everyone on the dais’, his actions would have followed, drawing that momentum to him. But he didn’t outperform his rivals. He stumbled badly and barely kept up, daily sending out campaign staff for message clarification. This is what people remember.

    Obama has never qualified himself as presidential material. He says he’s ready but as we all know, actions speak louder than words.

    Now, he’s painted himself as the desperate candidate on the outside looking in. Looking at the crowds supporting Hillary while wondering… how did this happen? I studied hard, I crammed for the exam, I answered all the questions.

    But.. has he asked himself the RIGHT question? He talked the talk…but when put to the test of (presidential) authenticity, didn’t walk the walk!

    Mrs. S.

Comments are closed.