Criticizing the President: What can and can't be criticized (and who can do it.)
So this story breaks on DU last night at 9:17:
Rachel is tearing the Clintons and Panetta a new one screamed the post title. So I switch it over to MSNBC and they're on commercial break. With nothing to see, I start reading the DU thread and the gist I got was Maddow had just exposed a grand conspiracy, a blood pact, between Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton to tear President Obama down and boost Clinton's chances for the White House. There was no hard links to be found.
Frankly, I wasn't caught off guard with this. Slimeball Dick Morris has been theorizing about this himself from the lofty perches of Newsmax and Townhall. Since most of us here put little faith in Morris, his ranting on this Clinton/Panetta conspiracy has been a side note for me. But now, apparently, Rachel Maddow had the scoop! So I quickly clicked over to DailyKOS to see how hot and heavy they were on the story. But there was nothing there last night.
I Googled it and, aside from the Morris references, found nothing. So off to bed I went, confident Morning Joe would have a recap on it. After all, when Hillary seemingly criticized Obama's foreign policy (which was a BAD thing on DU), MSNBC's morning show talked about it for hours, it seemed. And when Elizabeth Warren attacked Obama's economic policies (which was a GOOD thing on DU), Morning Joe covered that as well. But I heard nothing on that show during drive time.
Could it be Rachel didn't REALLY tear Panetta and Clinton "a new one?" Might this be typical internet hyperbole? I'd have to see the video - which I just did.
Here is what I heard:
Hidden in Maddow's rant was an underlying message: Business as usual for a political party. History is full of examples of this - as she showed. Reagan and Regan. Clinton and Morris (and Clinton and Gore.) What she didn't mention was other examples. Former Carter aids savagely attacked him, as did Ted Kennedy during their infamous 1980 primary campaign. Four years later, Walter Mondale wasn't real nice to his former boss either.
Yeah, business as usual. Except this time it's President Obama. And as we've seen, criticism of the President is only allowed if it's from 'progressives.' If Clinton seemingly attacks Obama on foreign policy, that's horrible. If Elizabeth Warren criticizes his economic policy, "progressives' give high fives and take it as evidence she's running for President.
Plus we're discussing Hillary (who wasn't even featured prominently in the story - except for her head superimposed on story graphic)
Yeah, the story may be true. There may be some arrangement between Panetta and Clinton. I wouldn't be surprised. Trust me, gang, if Warren runs do you think she's going to be nice about Obama's economic policies?
Then again, it could be political business as usual. A former aid who was a team player while in the administration is speaking his mind now. One thing is for sure, though. Maddow's take brought very little, if anything, else to Dick Morris's conspiracy - which was void of anything substantial to begin with. At the moment, it seems a couple of people who already don't like Hillary are trying to piece together... something...
= new reply since forum marked as read
