Update: Other sources have taken notice of what we pointed out regarding the Big Media narrative and the Big Media use of polls. Is this not the type of disinformation that the internet was supposed to fight against? Big Media is taking control of our Democratic nomination process and trashing our frontrunner in the same way Big Media will trash our Democratic Party nominee in 2008. They did it to Gore in 2000 and to Kerry in 2004. Big Media will try to do it again in 2008.
As much as we have derided, and will continue to criticize, MyDD – they are to be commended for noting how Big Media is trashing our elections. As usual Dailyhowler is on the job. TPM which usually participates in any Hillary bashing they can find (usually by the owner) has Greg Sargent on the job and doing good work. Taylor Marsh speaks up too. Hillary’s FactHub is counting the coverage as well.
When our elections get trashed by Big Media we learn who is willing to speak out and who is more concerned with their own self interests. PINOs, Naderites, and Big Blogs that pretend to fight Big Media – while getting book contracts and writing columns for Big Media that enrich the owners but do not take Big Media to task – are unmasked at these moments. These Quisling PINOs, Naderites, and Big Blogs are not our friends – they are the problem.
Poor Americans. Yesterday they had to be confused. Common sense told them Hillary is ahead and doing well in the presidential race. Big Media told Americans something else.
A reputable Gallup poll is published showing Hillary ahead, but all Big Media will discuss is a faulty interactive poll which shows Hillary behind. One (1) poll shows Obama barely ahead in Iowa and Big Media uses that one poll to negate all the polls showing Hillary ahead in Iowa, nationwide, and just about everywhere else. Little wonder that Americans do not trust their media. And Big Blogs which were supposed to be a remedy to Big Media misinformation – are no better.
We can only conclude that Americans will once again be surprised by the election results when Hillary wins.
While Big Media/Big Blogs continued their march into misinformation yesterday, Hillary continued to gather strength. In New Hampshire, Dr. Susan Lynch, spouse to the Governor, endorsed Hillary. In all likelihood the endorsement will help Hillary maintain her already substantial lead in New Hampshire.
Meanwhile Obama appeared on Nightline last night and kept up his weeks long slimy attacks on Hillary. Typical for Obama he began the Nightline interview with a lie.
TERRY MORAN: So let’s talk about experience, which you talk about a lot. You said recently that the strongest experience you have in foreign relations is that you grew up for four years as a child in Southeast Asia.
SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Well, that’s not exactly what I said. What I said was I think one of the things that sets me apart is that I spent time in other countries.
No, Barack, that is exactly what you said:
“Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact that I spent four years living overseas when I was a child in southeast Asia.”
Terry Moran could have easily quoted ABC News’ own published reports to contradict Obama, but we suppose Terry does not read his own network’s reports.
If Terry does not watch or read his own networks reports, he could have watched CNN which had this amusing comment from Senator Joe Biden when Obama’s foolish statement first aired:
Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also joined the fray Tuesday afternoon when asked what he thought of Obama’s comments.
“I think he’s right,” Biden said smiling. “That is his strongest [foreign policy] credential.”
This is not the first time Obama has openly lied to Americans. Obama lied about “preconditions” and Obama lied about attacking Pakistan. TV reporter David Shuster essentially called Obama a liar on the Pakistan issue.
After his initial Nightline lie, Obama attacked Hillary’s experience:
MORAN: So you think her being first lady isn’t all that, isn’t as much as she’s claiming?
OBAMA: Well, look, I have no doubt that she is an intelligent, capable woman. There’s no doubt that Bill Clinton had faith in her and consulted with her on issues, in the same way that I would consult with Michelle, if there were issues. On the other hand, I don’t think Michelle would claim that she is the best qualified person to be a United States senator by virtue of me talking to her on occasion about the work that I’ve done.
And I think that Senator Clinton certainly has experience that she should tout, and I don’t think anybody would suggest that somehow she’s not qualified to be president of the United States, in terms of the work that she’s done in the United States Senate. I think she’s done some good work. But I think that, you know, there is a tendency to overestimate some of the experience that is out there. In fact, our most successful presidents have been people who were successful not because of their wealth of Washington experience, but because of the life lessons and schools of hard knocks that they had gone through. And that’s true whether you’re talking about Lincoln, or FDR, or any of our greatest presidents.
Maybe Obama is just dense. Michelle after all works in a hospital while he works as a Senator whereas Hillary worked with Bill Clinton in the White House. Can anything be clearer? Either Obama is being deliberately obtuse or he is not very bright. As to this nonsense about Lincoln not being experienced Obama needs an American History lesson to clue him in on Lincoln – the founder of the Illinois Whig Party and the National Republican Party, and long term player in national politics particularly on abolition and tarriff issues. And the dynastic FDR was no slouch when it came to be a major player in national politics.
This morning the Los Angeles Times has published an article which addresses Hillary’s experience.
She always came prepared. From the first planning sessions for her husband’s victorious 1992 presidential run through the final 1994 White House meetings she chaired as the Clinton administration’s ill-fated healthcare initiative collapsed, Hillary Rodham Clinton was a force to be reckoned with as a decision-maker.
Her debut on the national stage in the early 1990s was a defining era for Clinton, a period when she emerged as Bill Clinton’s most influential campaign strategist and policy advisor. She was forceful and methodical in shaping the Clinton administration’s domestic policies and political strategy, and proved to be a disciplined partner to her famously disorganized husband: commanding, opinionated, daunting.
“Bill talked about social change, I embodied it,” Clinton wrote in “Living History,” her autobiography.
Meetings were her milieu. She would arrive toting the crisp yellow legal pads she had carried habitually since her days as a corporate lawyer. Armed with an exhaustively researched grasp of the issues at hand, she would press for still more options while lacerating opposing arguments with surgical precision.
Clinton’s all-access pass into the West Wing gave her an intimate education in presidential decision-making that none of her opponents can claim. She observed at close range how big government works, and she learned painfully from her missteps how easily it bogs down.
The L.A. Times notes that there were difficulties in the White House years and that Hillary never had ultimate executive authority. But the difficulties then are pluses now:
Presidential historian James McGregor Burns, who studied the uneasy dynamics of the Clinton White House, said that even her setbacks amounted to “educational failures” that toughened her for the long run.
“She’s been tested over and over again,” Burns said. “The question for voters is whether they feel she passed those tests and whether they think she learned from them.”
Hillary’s history as an advisor in 1991’s presidential election campaign was presaged by experience in the 1972 and 1976 McGovern and Carter presidential campaigns. Once in the White House Hillary was a major player:
From the start, Clinton’s campaign role was left as amorphous as possible, allowing her to carve out her own domain.
“No one raised a question about how her role was defined,” recalled lawyer Mickey Kantor, the campaign chairman. “It was assumed. You wanted her involved at the highest level.”
Involved she was, and in everything. She used her ties to New York legal circles to raise cash and tap political pros. While staffers took a breather on a bus caravan through Texas, old friend Bill Burton watched as “Hillary sat in the back and took charge of a press release on natural-gas policy.” As she peppered her husband’s aides with strategy, she was empire-building — cherry-picking loyalists who would work at the core of her White House staff.
Kantor and other campaign veterans credit her as the driving force behind the rapid-response “war room” operation. Later, she rode herd on the “defense team,” a cloistered group of staffers and lawyers who fended off media queries about the couple’s financial deals, rumors of Bill’s infidelity and his youthful dealings with Arkansas draft officials during the Vietnam War.
“She methodically set down the counter-strategy in a disciplined way,” said Betsey Wright, who ran the unit from Little Rock, Ark.
Democrats who think the Ripublicans will sit back and sing Kumbaya after the next election have not been paying attention. Newt Gingrich deliberately set out in the 1990s to remove Democrats from power. Using tools such as “term limits”, scandal mongering (which drove out the Democratic Speaker of the House) and other hardball tactics coordinated with allied media outlets and talk radio the Ripublicans took control of the government.
The full sum of the Hillary White House years, the good and the bad, will prove valuable when Hillary becomes the chief executive.
Obama can tout his child tourism all he wants. But for the office of the President, we need someone with adult experience.