Comments on: Interesting

By: snuzy mandrake

snuzy mandrake — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:18:46 +0000

the Obama surrogates have adopted all of the previous memes about Clinton and the media is more than happy to carry it forward because controversy is their bread and butter…the concept of ‘if it bleeds, it leads’ is a staple of main stream media.

yes, and clinton surrogates have adopted all the rightwing memes about obama.

the problem here is that both candidates have a whole lot of people who can be called their “surrogates” and with so many of them running off their mouths, all sorts of bad stuff gets attributed to each campaign.

but to actually take such attributions seriously, i think, is a little ridiculous.

I saw that there were 7 comments, and each one entirely predictable.

and yet you didn’t make any substantive response to any of them. look, i’m not trying to be nasty, i just think the point of this post is a pretty weak argument, for the reasons set forth in comment #1. if you disagree with me, by all means tell me why. saying we’re all “predictable” without addressing anything anyone says just suggests to me that you don’t have a real response.

By: white_n_az

white_n_az — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 02:15:40 +0000

The right wing/Rove, etc. has nothing to do with it…the Obama surrogates have adopted all of the previous memes about Clinton and the media is more than happy to carry it forward because controversy is their bread and butter…the concept of ‘if it bleeds, it leads’ is a staple of main stream media.

As for the casual dismissal…seemed pretty evident just by looking at the lineup of who chimed in and the valuable contributions that each has provided merely confirmed my expectations upon reading the one line…I saw that there were 7 comments, and each one entirely predictable.

Please don’t let me stop your fun

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:18:36 +0000

white_n_az: thank you so much for the casual dismissal of so many detailed comments on why Sen. Clinton is the second choice for so many of us. Why bother with facts when right wing tropes work so well? Karl Rove would be proud.
Remind me again how it’s we “Obamaniacs” (complete with our own little sarcastic, schoolyard level nickname) who alone use slurs and personal putdowns.

By: white_n_az

white_n_az — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:37:52 +0000

So yet another Clinton criticism is invalid.

Like a dog whistle for those afflicted with CDS…

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 23:35:28 +0000

No Wendy, what I believe is the term “MSM” is a right-wing trope that needs to be retired. The MSM is whatever the individual making the argument wants it to be. Of course you can point to outlets that got some factual information about Clinton wrong. FWIW - that’s a problem. But please try not to act so naive about the back and forth on this site over the last two months. This was posted as a “gotcha” – just another poor valiant Sen. Clinton being lied about by everyone moment.
Look, if you want to want to parse, go ahead, but please go all the way with it. Correct, Mark Penn did not put $10,000,000.00 in his pocket. Show me anyone in the MSM who says he did. Even the quote posted here doesn’t substantiate that claim: Dee Dee Myers: “I think it’s $250,000. You’ll have to check me on that. So he’s — so those figures that say he made $10 million are incorrect.” “…those figures…” becomes “So yet another Clinton criticism is invalid.”
Well, who or what are “those figures”?
You added “The story correctly points out how the media has been misrepresenting how much Penn is making (himself) from the Clinton campaign.” The only reference to Penn’s compensation in the entire story linked to is the above, off the top of her head quote from Myers, which names no names, cites no articles, and in no way proves anything about the MSM putting forth the notion that Penn has made $10 mil. off this election.
Also from the same linked to article: “MYERS: There’s a conflict there. It’s not only a conflict, it’s just not in your interest as the candidate to allow one person to process that data. Because you can find a lot of stuff in polling that might support your conclusions, but what you need is somebody there to argue a different perspective.”
Interesting how an interview that really didn’t paint a flattering portrait of Penn is reduced to one vague assertion with no documentation suggesting all the bad things Penn is accused of are just more examples of how the media is out to get Clinton.
I did point out Penn is far too despicable a person to be associated with any Democrat. I stand by that.

By: Wendy Whinner

Wendy Whinner — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:05:25 +0000

Bob:

So you approve inaccuracy from the MSM when it suits your interest. How about when it is inaccurate and is not in your favor? Will you protest then? The ends don’t justify the means.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:55:58 +0000

The above Doofi offers my sincerest apologies. Progressives working to get the once-seemingly-odious-but-now-soft-as-a-kitten Mark Penn out of Democratic politics are nothing but a bunch of sexists who hate Hilary Clinton and women in general. On behalf of all of us who have smeered this good man who has done so much for unions and the rights of workers everywhere, please except my heartfelt apologies.

By: Wendy Whinner

Wendy Whinner — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:50:18 +0000

To the above Doofi: The story correctly points out how the media has been misrepresenting how much Penn is making (himself) from the Clinton campaign. That is wrong and it is due to their herd mentality and low IQ’s IMO. The MSM will respond to this by saying “whatever”.

By: madmatt

madmatt — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:25:16 +0000

Mark Penn is still a scumbag…that hasn’t changed

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:44:33 +0000

“So yet another Clinton criticism is invalid.”
Susie, with all due respect the overwhelming majority of the criticism leveled at Clinton and Penn has to do with Penn’s core values; he is as pro-corporation as the most extreme right winger, is a notorious union-buster and helped create the famed “triangulation” approach which has proven so disastrous to progressive goals. The amount of money he’s getting may occasionally show up buried somewhere down near the end of a story, but the main problems most of us have with Penn ain’t related to the money. If Sen. Clinton hired John Edwards to draft her Position Papers and actually pursued his agenda none of us would care if she paid him a million dollars an hour. We’d be to busy celebrating the victory for progressive causes.

By: snuzy mandrake

snuzy mandrake — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:00:07 +0000

isn’t myer’s defense a bit weak? i mean, with that logic doesn’t that mean that someone who gets a $50k a year salary doesn’t “really” earn $50k a year because most of that money gets doled out to the person’s landlord, the grocery store, the phone company, etc.

his firm was paid $10 million to provide a service and that service had certain overhead costs that allowed them to net $250k in profit. that doesn’t change the fact that his firm charged the campaign $10 million and that penn ended up with a tidy profit.

not that i think any of this matters. all these consultants are overpaid. penn isn’t a very good consultant so it just stands out more.