Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

if true, this really pisses me off

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 11:22 AM
Original message
if true, this really pisses me off
from "WHO SENT THE DOGS OUT! Obama’s campaign—channeling Murdoch—told the dogs to bark:"

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh052808.shtml

"In fact, a familiar old pattern reappeared in the wake of Clinton’s remark in Sioux Falls. As John Harris explained at Politico, the Associated Press filed an initial report about Clinton’s session with the editorial board—and the AP didn’t mention her remark about Robert Kennedy’s death! At the AP, it was March in May; no one seemed to be troubled by Clinton’s outrageous comment (link to story below). But then, the people who script your “press corps” got busy! As Katherine Seelye reported on Monday, the brilliant minds at the New York Post got the nasty episode started. Then, your press corps’ current masters told the dogs to bark:

SEELYE (5/26/08): Shortly after Mrs. Clinton spoke on Friday, the Obama campaign jumped on the story, sending an e-mail message to reporters saying her comment had no place in a presidential campaign. It linked to a online report in The New York Post that said Mrs. Clinton was ''making an odd comparison between the dead candidate and Barack Obama—a phrase the newspaper later dropped.

So there you see the sad chronology of Friday’s nasty, vile nonsense. The AP treated Clinton’s remark as inconsequential—just as Robinson, Olbermann, Herbert and Dowd had done back in March. But off in the dumbest regions of Gotham, the creepy crawlers of Rupert Murdoch’s dumbest newspaper made a claim so stupid that they later retracted—and just like that, the Obama campaign threw the Post’s dog food to all the dogs! And presto! Just like that! Every shill in America’s “press corps” knew what their current trick had to be. They repeated the New York Post’s stupid and ugly claim—a claim so stupid that the Post even dropped it!—and soon, they were trying to top one another. They competed to see who could bark loudest about the vile thing Clinton said.

. . .

In fact, we’ve all seen this stupid story before, back when the RNC was still scripting the “press corps” (details tomorrow). But is it really so different today? Last Friday, it was Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post which first put out this rancid dog food—offering an interpretation so deeply stupid that even they later retracted it! But so what? If you want to know how your “press corps” works, you have to know who they take their scripts from. And last Friday, they took their script from Obama’s campaign—from the campaign John Judis tells us is “history.” But then, that campaign recently pimped out bullsh*t from “Mister Drudge” too! Should we really be surprised when it feeds on the New York Post!

Last Friday, Obama’s campaign told the “press corps” to jump. The “press corps” barked and then wondered: How high? But then, we’ve written this story for more than ten years: When the dogs were told to bark, Robinson, Olbermann, Herbert and Dowd all commenced barking and howling."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SoonerPride Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
1. It's true. Clinton said she was staying in the race because Obama might get shot. You should be POd
Edited on Tue Jun-03-08 11:24 AM by SoonerPride
(of course that was only by inference. But we all got the message loud n clear)

Many in America were also pissed off, including the Kennedy family.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Lots of people failed 'Analogies' on their SATs.
Hillary sure as hell didn't. :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoonerPride Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. She knew what she was saying and what those words implied.
She had hinted at it before, but never so brazenly.

She is a calculating lawyer and she knws how to use (and abuse) language.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Lawyers and politicians use language for the IMPACT on their audience.
Edited on Tue Jun-03-08 12:12 PM by TahitiNut
There is absolutely no question that she intended to invoke such a specter. This was a line she'd employed on several occasions. It was practiced and intentional. There just can't be any question about it. To claim there was no such intention is to claim that she's not skilled, by virtue of her training and experience, in the use of language ... a claim of incompetence. It just doesn't pass the laugh test. In my view, folks who claim otherwise on DU or in the media are playing a game of intellectual Twister ... and losing.

While I'd be the last person to attribute character and conscience to the corporate media, I believe it's understandable that the corporate media essentially ignored the prior occasions she invoked the specter of assassination. After all, to do so makes it more "thinkable" and, like violating the taboo of speaking about a no-hitter, there are some things we just don't say. Well ... not Hillary. She was under some bizarre compulsion to 'fire for effect' until the IMPACT was seen. There just wasn't any stopping her - where conscience took a back seat to self-serving hypocrisy. Sniper fire. 'Democrats' should be embarrassed. It's just one more thing that makes me glad to be an independent liberal. I just don't need the shame - or the mental contortions to evade it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
2. If the situation were reversed, Clinton's campaign would have come out
with a strong statement, too. Politics. Get over it.

The difference is, then Obama said he took her at her word that she meant nothing by it, and he DIDN'T say "as far as I know".

You want to compare smarmy campaign tactics, take a look at Clinton's non-stop crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
25. I hate some of Clinton's crap
The popular vote argument strikes me as intelectually dishonest. The attacks from the Clinton camp concerning Obama's "bitter" remarks were worthy of Sean Hannity. I'm an equal opportunity opponent of smears.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
3. Why am I not surprised?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
4. It's called politics
One way to avoid having the other campaign press blast your stupid statements?

Don't make stupid statements.

Stop playing the outraged innocent. It's a silly role that makes you look like either a fool or a liar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #4
22. Clinton's statement wasn't stupid (obviously) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TNOE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
6. Nope, not buying
I think MANY MANY people, such as myself, were outraged the minute it was reported. They didn't need the media to jump - the people who heard it jumped first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
9. Actually Drudge got the media dogs out first...that's how the NY Post story got media attention.
The NY Post article was featured on the front page of Drudge first in big headline. The press corps traveling with Clinton got calls from their editors who'd seen the story via Drudge shortly after the interview which had been streamed live on the net, per NYT reporter Seelye's blog of that day. (Yes the corporate media gets their stories from Drudge.)

Her interview began while we were on the bus, but Internet access was so poor, we could only pick up bits of her comments intermittently. We did hear her bat back reports that her campaign had made overtures to Senator Barack Obama’s campaign about some kind of deal for her to exit the race.

At the supermarket, we were ensconced in a café off the deli counter, where many reporters were writing about her denying the overtures while also trying to follow the live stream. Here, too, Internet access was spotty and the stream came over in choppy bursts.

Mrs. Clinton arrived from the newspaper in the midst of this, and began addressing a couple of hundred people who were seated adjacent to us, in the fresh produce section. Then our cell phones and Blackberries went off.

On the other end were editors who had seen a Drudge Report link to a New York Post item online. The Post was not with the traveling press — and apparently had a decent Internet connection.

The initial N.Y. Post item read this way: “She is still in the presidential race, she said today, because historically, it makes no sense to quit, and added that, ‘Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June,’ making an odd comparison between the dead candidate and Barack Obama.”

Mrs. Clinton did not make that comparison. Here’s the video and here’s the transcript from the paper’s Web site, though it is not complete.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/on-the-road-clintons-very-bad-day/

The NY Post story, with it's spin, was already out via Drudge to the media who was asking Clinton staff about it shortly after the interview. The Obama's campaign email was in response to a story that was already out and getting attention by the media. Again from Seelye's blog of that day:

She was referencing the assassination as a familiar timeline benchmark that might remind listeners that Mr. Kennedy was campaigning in June. (Her references were not quite right, since those campaigns began much later than this one, but that’s another story.) At the same time, she used an eye-popping word in the context of a presidential campaign with a black candidate.

In the deli section, we were seeking reaction from Clinton aides. One of them, Mo Elleithee, who had been with Mrs. Clinton at the editorial meeting, said her comments were being distorted.

A usually mild-mannered man, he was noticeably angry. He gave an on the record statement, saying that any attempt to portray her comment as anything other than a timeline was “inaccurate.” He came back again to add the word “outrageous.”

Mrs. Clinton, meanwhile, was finishing up her short talk with the people in the produce section, where voters were asking her about her decision to pursue the nomination, often offering words of encouragement. One woman asked her about the once-arcane subject of superdelegates.

“I’m racing against the wind here,” Mrs. Clinton said, noticing that Mr. Obama had the “establishment” endorsements in the state. Afterward, she posed for pictures with workers behind the deli counter and went into a holding room.

By then, the Obama campaign had issued a statement, linking to the Post item and saying her comment “was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign.” Privately, we were told, the Obama camp was livid.

As the news whipped around the Web and on cable television. furious comments from readers started piling up on Web sites (including our own).
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/on-the-road-clintons-very-bad-day/

Howler quotes Seelye's article that offers a condensed version, but not Seeley's detailed blog of that day that shows the sequence of events as Seelye herself saw it that day...the NY Post story was out in the media via Drudge and getting their attention before the Obama campaign responded to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NatBurner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. yep
selective memory must be contagious
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. thank you Garbo for the useful info
Edited on Tue Jun-03-08 12:21 PM by Vattel
as for most of the other posters so far: Get a freakin' clue. Anyone who is confident that there was some coded message in her remarks is a fool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. You seem....bitter, Vattel. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. Another bitter Hillary-lover for Obama n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
12. but Obama says he's against this kind of politics (eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abacus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
13. It's not true, you can resume not being pissed off.
The "blogstorm" had been going on a while before the Obama campaign made a comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. well,
it does appear (based on Garbo's informatiuon) that the daily howler exaggerate the extent to which the media response followed the Obama email. Of course, the email was still slimy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crankychatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
15. jeezus are you still harping about this shit? nt
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VolcanoJen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
16. So Clinton's remarks are actually Obama's fault.
Should he apologize? :eyes:

And besides, wasn't this story moved by Drudge??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Doncha just love that logic?
Thank god this thing is nearly over. I hope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. no , the Obama campaign's slimy email is Obama's fault n/t
Edited on Tue Jun-03-08 01:05 PM by Vattel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barack the house Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
21. There are some overly partisan broadcasters but they aren't taking orders...
Edited on Tue Jun-03-08 01:10 PM by barack the house
Obama then later said he felt nothing malicious was meant by the comments. It's more than Hillary has done when she has smelt blood about his gaffes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. then why did his campaign send the email
Obama did the same sort of thing with respect to the photo of him in the Kenyan treaditional clothing, first blaming Clinton, then backing off, and the campaign did the same thing with some of the silly accusations against the Clintons in S.C. until Obama apologized for it. He needs to run a tighter ship if he really believes in a different kind of politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. The daily howler writer
was not using "taking orders" literally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
26. last chance Obama supporters
In my opinion, the Clinton campaign's response to "bittergate" was slimy. Her popular vote argument is intellectually dishonest. I believed that she was capable of dirty politics when I was a Clinton supporter. Can't one Obama supporter other than myself just have the intellectual and moral integrity to admit that the Obama campaign's email response to Clinton's RFK remarks was slimy? Just one, that's all I ask.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 09th 2024, 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC