Media Bias
Mar 30th, 2008 at 8:57 am by Susie
Some very smart people on the media bias panel I moderated yesterday - Will Bunch, Eric Boehlert, Athenae, Spocko, and Doug Smith.
The most interesting part to me was Eric Boehlert’s take on how the blogosphere is handling the primary:
Next is Media Matters’ Eric Boehlert. He refers us to McCainFreeRide.com for the excellent book produced by Media Matters, Free Ride. MM doesn’t use the word “bias,” but there’s a new phenomenon … it goes back to Gore’s press in 1999 which was “really unfair and really weird.” What’s happening online now is potentially dangerous: HRC has gotten dreadful press, not fair, “gotcha,” and so on — there’s a portion of the blogosphere that has ignored that and there’s a portion that has encouraged that.
It’s dangerous because the media criticism has to be consistent and relentless, and we can’t very well say, “You can’t go after our candidates … except this one.” I get nervous about pushback regarding disingenuous coverage - our response needs to be, “You can’t treat Democrats this way.” When people in the left blogosphere are quoting an anonymous Matt Drudge source, it makes me nervous.
I noticed that after he said this, only half of the audience clapped. I then mentioned something I’ve written here before: When you read or hear something that makes you disgusted with another Democrat, you need to dig deeper into the story.
I’d been chatting with Eric the night before, and he told me he’d been interviewing Clinton bloggers for a book about how bloggers are affecting the 2008 presidential campaign, and was “shocked” to hear again and again that people felt they could no longer speak freely in the blogosphere.
“I’m not,” I said. I told him most of the bloggers I know are appalled at the present state of affairs, and that they’d basically been bullied into silence. (Which I find ironic - white working class Clinton voters are called “Archie Bunker types” by Obama supporters, and yet the Clinton supporters are the ones being told to “Stifle yourself!”)
He said he was astounded at the venom those bloggers described, and had already collected so much material, he was thinking of making it a separate book.
Later, for the evening’s entertainment, Rude Pundit performed his crowd-pleaser “Why I Won’t Fuck Ann Coulter.” (He’d originally planned to perform “Why I Won’t Fuck Hillary Clinton,” but in light of the day’s conversations, he decided not to.)
UPDATE: Zuzu has some related thoughts.
Athenae, who’s also an ex-journalist, spoke rather eloquently about the use of fear in journalism.
And TRex, God bless his heart, gets it:
At the Media Bias panel Susie Madrak brought up what I feel is a much more compelling matter, the class issue in Corporate Media, how a lot of these people pulling the strings at the major news organs are life-long rich kids like the president, and that journalizming as we know it is brought to you by the same elite class of trustafarians who have ruined just about everything else. Somehow even in the parts of society that are supposed to be on guard against the complacency and stagnation that occurs at the top of rigidly economically layered societies, the Posh Kids always win, and we’re all the worse off for it.
And here’s Bob Somerby in a similar vein.
it’s odd that you heard “only half the audience clap.” i mean, i thought pretty much everyone did. i know i did. and i completely agree with eric, anytime clinton is treated unfairly by the press it should be called out. but that’s exactly the reason that i have been arguing with you here when i think you have treated obama unfairly. there’s plenty to criticize about obama and his campaign–you won’t hear me deny that clinton’s health care plan is superior to his. but that doesn’t make the wright and rezko stuff non-smears. they are when red state plugs them, and they are when they appear here as well. calling out unfairness directed at both candidates is exactly what eric was talking about yesterday. there’s no reason we shouldn’t all applaud his words as they apply to everyone and everything.
the simple fact is that too often, Obama supporters don’t see how unfairly the media is treating Clinton because it fits with the way they want things to be.
Niemöller wrote eloquently about this and we seem to never learn.
So let the Obama supporters worship King Olbermann and watch MSNBC until they realize that MSNBC is so behind McCain that come August, it too will be unwatchable.
As for Snuzy’s reference to Wright and Rezko…do you expect that Obama was going to ride past these issues on his unity pony?
ah, the solution to all the “bullying” you face is to censor rude pundit!
I get it now.
steve, susie didn’t censor the rude pundit. he changed his mind all on his own after seeing the error of his ways. he made that clear at the start of his brilliant performance.
Never-the-less, The Rude One, of all, self-censored, something we even out here in the hinterlands have noticed with alarm, and by my read the point of Susie’s post. Fear is the mind killer - we have nothing to fear, but fear itself.
i understand that he decided to censor himself, did not mean to say someone told him directly to cut it…
self-censorship is more pernicious in my view.
“he made that clear at the start of his brilliant performance.”
You thought that was brilliant?
I didn’t make EschaCon for financial reasons, but I’m not certain I would have gone if I’d had the money. I used to be a regular lurker and frequent commenter in the Eschaton threads. Early in the year, when I still expressed doubts about Clinton, her supporters would defend her positions, and all was civil and usually cordial.
Once I examined Clinton’s record in more depth and became a supporter, I was heaped with insults by a small but obnoxious number of mostly newcomers. I noticed a lot of other Clinton supporters getting quieter, too. I seldom even enter the threads anymore. It’s not that I can’t handle insults from a bunch of pseudonymous people I’ll likely ever meet. I’m dealing with my own problems in meat space. Why should I court insults in my free time?
I’m heartily glad the convention went well. I had a wonderful time at the first one, I know.
Terrific work Susie.
Noz, I read someone else who said only one-third of the room clapped. Maybe it depends on where you were sitting.
Wright and Rezko are not smears. Rezko may still be a walking time bomb - $700,000 borrowed by Rezko from Auchi given to Mrs. Rezko and used to help Obama buy his house. I don’t care how many times people say there’s nothing illegal it stinks to high hell. It’s relevant not only in terms of a potential attack issue but also in terms of Obama’s presentation of himself as uncorrupted by the money in politics.
Wright has already been discussed to death but to me it’s relevant to where he got the idea to use race accusations as a weapon both to destroy the opposition and to gin up support among African Americans — among other issues.
The most astounding thing about this primary is the loss of faith in the progressive blogosphere as being more reality based than the right-wing.
I’m dealing with my own problems in meat space. Why should I court insults in my free time?
Exactly.
I hope when all this is over some of the wiser heads in the progressive liberal blogosphere can figure out how to prevent this demonization in the future.
For me, it deals with my own policies NEVER to call anyone a troll or worse a concern troll. I think those labels should just be tossed away — all they do now is encourage shouting down dialog.
And this has demonstrated to me that conservatives have a point when they state “there is no hate like liberal hate.”
Finally, we are the reality based blogosphere? I wish. We have just as many idiots living in fantasy land and thinking that argument is primarily name calling for political agendas as anyone else.
As for Snuzy’s reference to Wright and Rezko…do you expect that Obama was going to ride past these issues on his unity pony?
of course not. nor do i think that the right would refrain from bringing up whitewater, monica lewinski, the rich pardon, etc. if clinton somehow gets the nomination. but that doesn’t make any of that stuff fair game for obama or his supporters to bring up. if they do i will call them on it just as i’m calling clinton people on this stuff. look at amelia’s comment above:
I don’t care how many times people say there’s nothing illegal it stinks to high hell.
that’s basically the sentiment that drove the whitewater investigation. millions of dollars wasted because people said “it stinks it high hell”. and in the end it turns out the “stink” didn’t indicate anything illegal. it really just indicated a lot of people who didn’t like the candidate making a stink. that’s all the rezko scandal seems to be.
eric boehlert’s point was that progressives should not engage in smear tactics and should challenge smears of democrats no matter who they are. he was talking about obama supporter’s silence in the fact of unfair attacks against clinton, and the times that obama supporters have actually repeated clinton-smears on their own. boehlert is completely right. but it applies equally to obama-smears as well. if there is evidence that obama broke the law in his relationship with rezko, then fine, he should suffer the consequences for that. but without evidence, it’s just a baseless guilt-by-association smear. the same with wright. even my clinton-supporting wife gets turned off whenever hears about that stuff. as boehlert said, none of us should be engaging in any of this.
Under this philosphy, Joe Lieberman would still be a Democrat because nobody would have been allowed to speak ill of him.
You may think it an unfair comparison, but the point is obvious: At what point does this break down, and why shouldn’t every individual be allowed to make that judgment for themselves?
You bring up a good point. I’d say the place to draw the line is at using using right-wing talking points, rather than comparisons.
Later, for the evening’s entertainment, Rude Pundit performed his crowd-pleaser “Why I Won’t Fuck Ann Coulter.” (He’d originally planned to perform “Why I Won’t Fuck Hillary Clinton,” but in light of the day’s conversations, he decided not to.)
Most reasonable, thinking people dislike Ann Coulter. The Rude Pundit couldn’t go wrong with that choice. It’s called tailoring your material to the perceived leanings of your crowd, which as you know, is a form of self-censorship.
As an Obama supporter, I would’ve been just as amused if he performed his crowd-pleaser “Why I Won’t Fuck Barack Obama” or his (”crowd-pleaser?”) “Why I Won’t Fuck Hillary Clinton.” I can think of at least one person in his audience who might’ve been displeased if he performed his crowd-pleaser “Why I Won’t Fuck Susie Madrak” or his “Why I Won’t Fuck Duncan Black.” It’s possible some people would’ve giggled under their breath while nervously trying to avoid the knives, darts and daggers thrown at them through the icy stares of you and/or Dr. Black. We’ll never know, will we?
Instead of promoting the values and ideas of both our Democratic candidates against the remaining Republican candidate, some bloggers have taken sides and seem intent on going as negative as possible to make their candidate look better than the other. To make it sound like most of the negativity is emanating from Obama’s side is a bit of a stretch. Check out talkleft.com and taylormarsh.com, for example. There are plenty of others. I’d really like to hear someone address the issue one day, not how badly Obama supporters are attacking Clinton, but why they are doing it, and vice-versa. What is it about Hillary and Barack that seems to draw the negativity out of their opponents like a magnet and instills in their supporters a sense of shared victimhood? Is their strongest calling card to the polls going to be an appeal to sympathy voters?
I’ve avoided getting involved in the personal attacks and negativity of bloggers on either side, and yes, both sides are doing it. It hasn’t been my experience that supporters of either side are being told to stifle it, that one side, more than the other, is sheepishly backing down from arguing, criticizing or casting aspersions, or afraid of “speaking freely.”
I really don’t want a President sworn in next January who got there because he/she garnered the most votes at the pity party this November.
While I certainly agree that Obama supporters must not allow themselve to be sucked into endorsing or passing on unfair coverage of Hillary Clinton or smears directed against her and her campaign, I do have to say that there is a substantive difference between the tactics of the Clinton and Obama campaigns which explains why there is a level of blogospheric hostility to Sen. Clinton.
In the first place, they have gone around endorsing John McCain over Obama, touting his “readiness” to be Commander in Chief and otherwise pumping up his virtues. Both Bill and Hillary have suggested, on multiple occasions, that McCain is more fit to be president than Obama. As another example, Hillary Clinton took the opportunity of a sit-down with the very architect and financier of the vast right-wing conspiracy to try to resurrect the Jeremiah Wright flapdoodle. I can’t say for sure that they sent out Geraldine Ferraro to gin up white resentments over affirmative action, but Hillary sure didn’t get around to distancing herself from it until the tactic had plenty of time to work. Hillary also says that Obama is not a Muslim “as far as I know.” I could go on and on, but you get the point — she appears to be running for the Republican nomination.
The above comments are not unfair and they are not smears. They are all true. This has got to stop, and it is no wonder that a lot of people are mad at her. It’s not a question of a plague on both houses. The Clinton campaign has long ago crossed a line that should not be crossed.
Wanna know what *I* hate? It’s the assumption that I’m a goddamned gender traitor for daring to suggest that Hillary’s excrement does indeed possess an odor, and not that of lilacs.
It’s like watching all the women falling for Carly Fiorina’s “I was a victim of sexism!” bullocks after she’d trashed both HP and Compaq and was sent packing as a result. Now of course these same women will be delighted to hear she’s working for John McCain.
Here’s a question that’s been stated all over the internet: Can anyone imagine Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, or Mike Huckabee EVER suggesting that a Democratic candidate was better at anything than a GOP rival of Rudy’s, Mitt’s or Mike’s? Of course not. Republicans, no matter how swollen their egoes, never, ever, EVER make any attacks on fellow Republicans that undermine the party as a whole. Yet with her and her surrogates’ pushing the whole “McCain’s better Commander in Chief material than Obama” meme, Hillary’s doing just that to the Democratic party.
I agree with cervantes. Once upon a time, I had no real dog in the race but the Clinton tactics have really pushed me to Obama. They just have and that’s not bias. I’m not certain why I’m supposed to dismiss real criticism of her or her campaign as bias. I like Clinton, I really do. But their fuzzy math with suggesting that superdelegates should overturn our votes, the endorsement of McCain over Obama, the Jesse Jackson comment, the cocaine nonsense, the pretending that she didn’t agree Michigan and Florida wouldn’t count before now saying it’s appalling that they won’t….it’s revolting. Some might call it just good politics and I agree that in many ways it is.
But maybe what we’re seeing is a bunch of people (including bloggers) getting sick of “good politicians” winning every couple of years.
At the Media Bias panel Susie Madrak brought up what I feel is a much more compelling matter, the class issue in Corporate Media, how a lot of these people pulling the strings at the major news organs are life-long rich kids like the president, and that journalizming as we know it is brought to you by the same elite class of trustafarians who have ruined just about everything else.
But…but…Tim Russert keeps telling us he’s a blue-collar guy from Buffalo, NY.
Later, for the evening’s entertainment, Rude Pundit performed his crowd-pleaser “Why I Won’t Fuck Ann Coulter.”
Personally I prefer the title “Why I Don’t Give a Fuck About Ann Coulter”. IMO, just as funny and without the misogynistic undertones.
breaking up Big Media is the most important act that America could do start on the road to recovery.
.
Well, there is no shortage of vitriol against Obama supporters, let’s make no mistake. Both sides take turns at saying how badly they are treated. I really just think the whole season brings out high energy and passion and hostility across the board. I’d have to add that Clinton deserves some of the pushback. Lately, her campaign’s tactics have been rotten. Seems she is more in line with the entrenched elites (McCain, etc) than the Dems as a whole.
Personally I prefer the title “Why I Don’t Give a Fuck About Ann Coulter”. IMO, just as funny and without the misogynistic undertones.
Yeah, I’m waiting for the “Why I Won’t Fuck Barack Obama”.
Or even “Why I Won’t Fuck John McCain”.
What has Hillary Clinton ever done that makes you think she’d want to fuck you?
The vitriol is definitely on both sides. However, I do have to say that it seems to me that Clinton supporters, not to mention Clinton herself, have been more prone to using right-wing memes against Obama, especially when it comes to race.
I’m a black Obama supporter, and through all of this campaign to date, through the all race-baiting, I had no problem saying that I would vote for her if she won the nomination. But when she kissed up to people who accused her of being involved in murder, that tore it for me.
Acanthus,
We lived in Pitt during the ‘06 primary season, and met all of the ‘06 senatorial Democratic primary candidates, and some of those contesting the western congressional races, their CMs, body persons, and so on.
No one wanting to win, either the Philly+Pitt media markets, or win just in the Pitt media market, would sensibly avoid an editorial board meeting with all the dailies. All of them.
Feel free to go on feeling “torn” and superior. FYI, Pitt is one racially divided town, and Pennsyltucky is no cakewalk for any Dem, and some things are just facts of life.
I am scared the black man is unelectable, he has no experience, Larry Sinclair will scare the red states into not voting for Hussein. I am so frightened.
It’s not clear to me exactly why anyone thinks that Hillary has been treated harshly by the media. Given the extraordinary advantages that she enjoyed when the campaign began, she has done poorly, and media coverage reflects that fact. I actually think the MSM has bent over backward to legitimize her continued presence in the race. How many times have we been told that HRC needed 20-point blowout wins to keep hope alive? When she failed to produce wins of that magnitude, the media shrugged and invented another ‘firewall’ state for Clinton. When we examine the results of the March 4 primaries (TX/OH/VT/RI) we see that HRC basically broke even, yet the press treated the events of that day as though she had won a watershed victory.
Hillary might be a victim of high expectations. She began the race with $100 million in the bank, 96 committed superdelegates, major name recognition after two terms in the White House, many friends and colleagues in the Democratic Party hierarchy, a famous husband who is the most visible and popular Democrat in the party, plus she is a Senator from New York, the second most populous state and the media hub for the nation. Further, the primary schedule was engineered to favor a candidate who was the strong front-runner. It’s almost impossible to imagine someone starting a campaign with a greater array of structural and strategic advantages. If indeed the media has been tougher on Hillary, it’s because she has underperformed terribly in light of her huge headstart, while Obama has overperformed in spectacular fashion. Her campaign made major tactical errors, mismanaged their money, and allowed their internal squabbles to become public knowledge. They have taken a very good situation and made a mess of it.
IMHO, the schism between the two camps occurred at the moment that Hillary tried to steal the delegates from the bogus primaries held in Florida and Michigan. The voters and the candidates in those contests were told beforehand that the results would not count. Only a banana republic would try to reverse the situation and count those votes after the fact. She claims to be deeply and sincerely concerned about the disenfranchisement of the voters in those two states; all we have to do is ask ourselves whether HRC would be out there righteously advocating for the seating of those disputed delegates if Obama had come out ahead in those flawed primaries. (Hint: the correct answer is NO.) Hillary’s transparently self-serving ploy to gain those delegates gave us a window on her character, and at that point many of us decided that she is made of the wrong stuff.
We’ve heard a lot of grumbling and whining from Clinton supporters in the blogosphere; they claim that they are being savaged by the Obama supporters. I think that is rubbish– they tied themselves to a sinking ship, and they haven’t had any good news to celebrate for a very long time, so consequently they are in a funk. Go over to the Taylor Marsh site if you’d like to see them in full frothing mode.
“Feel free to go on feeling “torn” and superior…”
It’s not a matter of feeling superior. It’s a matter of feeling that anyone who would sell herself out that way wouldn’t give a damn about selling the rest of us out.
As long as we have corporate money in politics, we will have candidates making compromises that break our hearts. I doubt Obama will be any different.
The clapping was by no means universal — and there were times when the whole room clapped, so we have a baseline. Half the room is the upper bound, I think; I was on the Will Bunch side of the room.
As far as “haven’t had any good news to celebrate for a very long time…” You mean since OH? TX?* Of course, a week is a long time in politics…
* The secret ballot, of course, only.
How interesting that the Obama supporters here were so quick to start repeating all of the same old attacks. It gets really tiresome countering them all, but repeating canards like “as far as I know” and saying “they’re all true” is really offensive. Hillary actually stepped up and said repeatedly that Obama wasn’t a muslim. I have constantly asked Obama supporters how they justify the “as far as I know” BS without ever mentioning the fact that Hillary said “Not at all. There’s no basis for that,” among several similar comments. I have yet to have one Obama supporter even address the point.
I also notice that ebw made the very obvious point that Hillary sat down with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review because she’s engaged in a campaign in Pennsylvania, and that’s what candidates do. So of course Acanthus comes right back with the accusation that she “sold herself out,” without even acknowledging ebw’s point. I’m sure it would please Obama’s supporters for her to disadvantage herself in the campaign to make a point. When the right wing Las Vegas Sun endorsed Obama, I don’t recall reading that he was troubled by it.
As for Wright, it’s intersting that he has now entered the Obama lexicon as one of Hillary’s “smears” (apparently the favorite word of Obama supporters.) I know it makes it easier to deal with by just blaming it all on Hillary, but Wright was a problem entirely of Obama’s making. The entire thing blew up withouit a word from the Clinton campaign. How can any logical person blame this on Hillary? As for the fact that she said he wouldn’t be her pastor, the man humped a podium while insulting her and her husband. At what point is she allowed to say something about it?
And please stop the “both sides do it” excuse. TalkLeft has mostly pro-Hillary comments, but anyone who claims that there’s a lot of hate directed to Obama supporters doesn’t visit the site. As for taylormarsh, stack her blog up against Kos, TPM, Washington Monthly and HuffPo, arguably the four most widely read lefty sites. All have become cesspools of Hillary hatred. Commenters there regularly refer to Hillary as “the monster,” “Shrillery,” “Hitlery,” “neocon with blood on her hands,” etc. I’d appreciate it if someone could tell me the equivalent despicable comments that are regularly used throughout the blogosphere by Hillary supporters. So no, both sides don’t do it.
Susie,
There is a fundamental difference between WhiteWater and Rezko. The Madison Guaranty (the S&L whose failure was the heart of the White Water investigation) had already been investigated by the Resolution Trust and been given a pass. Federal prosecutor with subpoena power had already taken a look at all the issues and given McDougal something that resembled a clean bill of health. That was before Bill was nominated in 92.
There is no equivalent with Rezko. Rezko is a guy on trial for, among things, bribing state officials and here we have him doing a personal favor to Obama to the tune of $625k. Holy fuck. And nobody can tell us what he expected in return. I just don’t understand Obama supporters giving Obama a pass on this - this is insane. Nothing illegal happened? How the fuck do you know? What the heck do you think Rezko was doing? Do you think he was, like, so morally offended at Obama’s daughters not growing up in a mansion that he would put aside his own greed and shovel $625k Obama’s direction with no intention of ever personally profiting? That’s what you’re asking me to believe.
There was never anything even remotely that smelly in White Water. The only guy who made a claim against Clinton was David Hale who was in trouble for bilking the SBA out of a couple million dollars and SOLD NON-EXISTENT GRAVE SITES TO INDIGENT ELDERLY AFRICAN AMERICANS WHO PAID FOR THEIR PLOT ON A WEEKLY BASIS.
The two things are no equivalent. One had been thoroughly investigated by federal prosecutors and there was never anything about the failure that indicated corruption on Clinton’s part. However, an elected official having a $625k financial favor done for him by a mob affiliate who is under investigation for bribing state officials is something else entirely. Especially since there is no obvious way for that land purchase to benefit Rezko.
We knew what the beginning, the middle and the end of White Water was, and that was borne time and time again. We only know the beginning of Obama/Rezko and the middle and the end could more than destroy a campaign or a presidency. And we shouldn’t even be considering taking that risk this time out.
I just find it amazing that when Obama and his “men” call for Hillary to drop out before it’s done it is “clear thinking”. When Hillary says no she is “playing politics”.
So now Obama finds himself in the postion of supporting disenfranching voters in 10 states. Fact is, Obama attempted tp play politics and push Hillary out, and all he did was end up being pushed into a bad corner by someone who “lives” politics. Politics is not a bad thing it is just the nature of our election and governing process.
As long as we have corporate money in politics, we will have candidates making compromises that break our hearts. I doubt Obama will be any different.
Speaking of corporate money, which of the two Democratic candidates has taken the most in their campaign?
Almost every day, something “new” floats to the surface from Hillary’s past for her to have to deal with. Is the following an April Fool’s joke or a legitimate story:
March 31, 2008
Watergate-Era Judiciary Chief of Staff: Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior
Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.
Why?
“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
…
http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc163.htm
For people who continue to want to rehash the Obama/Rezko story, Patrick Fitzgerald (a Republican), whom we all admired for his handling of the Valerie Plame affair (rolling eyes), has stated that there is no “there” there as far as indicting Obama for improprieties and possible illegal activity. Should we trust Patrick Fitzgerald now, as most of us trusted and respected him during the Plame investigation, or should we assume Patrick Fitzgerald is doing Obama a favor by not indicting him?
Had Hillary Clinton not had to face Barack Obama in this Democratic primary, I would’ve supported her steadfastly and been pleased to vote for her this April and then in November, despite knowing there were things in her past that would make some people clutch their pearls and gasp. There’s nothing in Hillary’s past to compare to the dirty tricks and mudslinging the Republican Party and their candidates have done and are capable of. Unfortunately for Hillary, there seems to be a shoe dropping every day or so from a woman who apparently has more shoes than Amelda Marcos.
Having said all that, I am an Obama supporter who doesn’t want Hillary to drop out before the last primary/caucus. Running for President is her right, just as it is Ralph Nader’s. I’m not one of the Obama supporters who says they won’t vote for Hillary if she wins the primary and would vote for the decrepit, senile old fool McCain. Of course, hardly anyone who supports Hillary will believe me. From the rhetoric I’ve seen a lot of Hillary supporters spew, they believe I’d vote for the reincarnation of Hitler over Hillary.
I’ll be so glad when this election year is over with and the “us against us” madness (re: “us against them”) can finally become a footnote in history.
I spend quite a bit of time over at TPM trying to deflect a lot of blanket and one-sided Obama-fan charges as well as sheer vitriolic comment. I find it humorous that by contesting the huge amount of sexist comment and assumptions that I’m assumed to be a woman - somehow I assumed my writing would out me pretty easily, but no, men don’t do feminist issues it seems (and now I find out that women of color don’t do them either, only “womanist” issues a la Alice Walker - how old school of me). About the only feminist advance I find this election is that people now feel more comfortable using the tags “bitch” and “cunt” in public. Oh wait, that’s not an advance, is it?
Oh, for Randy, the Zeifman thing was either an April Fool’s Joke or a pure BS Scaifian/Rovian smear. Thanks for tossing out more Martian Chronicles.
From the rhetoric I’ve seen a lot of Hillary supporters spew, they believe I’d vote for the reincarnation of Hitler over Hillary.
Well, Randy, the common use of the name “Hitlery” to describe Clinton might have something to do with that.
Well, Randy, the common use of the name “Hitlery” to describe Clinton might have something to do with that.
I suppose it might, Susie. People who resort to juvenile name-calling like that should be ashamed of themselves. By the way, it was wrong of me to insinuate that McCain might be the reincarnation of Hitler and I apologize. Still, I would NEVER vote for him instead of Hillary or vote for him instead of Barack as I’ve seen some commenters write.
#36 Decider, thank you for clearing up the Hillary Watergate article. I should’ve suspected it was a Scaifian/Rovian smear or a bad joke.
This primary race has just become so depressing for me. I’ve been unsubscribing to once-great political blogs like crazy in recent months. I’m seeing plenty of right wing smears being pushed, excuses being made for racism or sexism and, most disappointingly, I’ve seen claims of bias that comes straight out of the old Bush-defending manual. It’s a real struggle coming out of these discussions feeling informed.
Honestly, I feel like it’s about equal between Clinton and Obama supporters frustrating me, but my memory could be clouded that I’m just disappointed to see that kind of talk on “progressive” blogs, so my mind isn’t really tallying which side leaves me angry as much as I’m counting the number of times progressives leave me feeling like I should get ready for eight years of McCain.
Hello? Hello? Remember the war? Soldiers being sent to Iraq again and again, as in “What, you still alive? Back to Iraq!” Remember the national parks being sold to Republican cronies? Remember the Bill of Rights and government oversight, which nearly drowned in Grover Norquist’s bathtub?
Obamaniacs and Hilarians, Grover is giggling into his scotch/rocks right now, (that’s a question: what would Grover Norquist drink?) and Karl Rove just has a warm fuzzy feeling all over, eeeewwww, because YOU are doing their work for them. I don’t care who started it, I want it to stop and I want you to suck it up and vote for whatever is on the Democratic ticket in November no matter how appalling. That’s what I’m going to do, and I don’t like EITHER of them. Right now. And I bloody well hope you do feel intimidated!
The part of blogosphere missed a great opportunity to enlighten, but instead, descended into us vs them, where them used to be us. I think Rove had a hand in it.
Welcome to the Republicans world. You’re only concerned because its your bull being gored. You have come to the realization that an attack on a Democrat you don’t like is still damaging to the brand. Well, you reap what you sow. This atmosphere where the elitist press can so belittle and damage someone was honed for years against the Republican candidates. Now you’re in for a taste because your campaign has become a contest between the despised “archie bunkers” and the brie and champagne San Francisco liberals and you don’t like it much when its YOU who are being looked down upon and condescended to and patted on the head. Drop out Hillary, so your betters can start the campaign to destroy the Republican.
Schadenfreude motherfuckers.
I’m not surprised the bloggers are engaged in vicious bullying: I have been on the internet for about 20 years, and viciousness is what I expect of a dark and airless cave where invisible, anonymous people can say what they like. What dismays me is that it has such influence on the real world. And what I notice is that Clinton’s appeal to real world people who may not be so obsessed with listening to their own voices in that dark and airless cave seems pretty robust. Maybe she has the antique state of the US internet to thank for that. If only about 50 per cent of New York State, say, is connected, and voters are having to do the old fashioned thing and think for themselves about who to support, perhaps that explains how she has confounded the bloggers and media commentators (all doing their “research” online, I suspect) alike and won contests where they had noisily proclaimed her the loser ahead of polling day.
As for the state of the movers and shakers in our oh-so-modern, shiny new media world - I was reminded of this article about the current crop of well connected British churnalists:
A job for the wealthy and connected
How can journalism truly reflect society when entry to the profession relies on wealth, geography, and parents prepared to pay the wages that employers will not?
Peter Wilby
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/07/pressandpublishing4
And for those most blinded by their devotion to Obama, I have just two words: Tony Blair.