What Are Friends For?
Hope! Change! Change! Hope!
By streiff Posted in 2008 | Hillary | MSM | repudiation — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
We all wondered when it would happen.
For eight long dark years we scratched our heads in amazement as the national media shamelessly boosted the Bugtussle Camelot cum county fair that was the Clinton administration. Why, we wondered, did the reflexively snobbish, upwardly mobile, good government types who tend to populate newsrooms give a pass to the grifters who turned the White House into a Bransonized Versailles? We still don't have the answer to that, but as of today we have a good idea that this unlikely romance is over.
Read on.
From the Washington Post's Fifth Column of One, Dana Milbank, describes a press briefing gone dreadfully wrong in Team Clinton: Down, and Out of Touch:
The Christian Science Monitor had assembled the éminences grises of the Washington press corps -- among them David Broder of The Post, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times and columnist Mark Shields -- for what turned out to be a fascinating tour of an alternate universe.
First came Harold Ickes, who gave a presentation about Hillary Rodham Clinton's prospects that severed all ties with reality. "We're on the way to locking this nomination down," he said of a candidate who appears, if anything, headed in the other direction.
But before the breakfast crowd had a chance to digest that, they were served another, stranger course by Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer. Asked about an accusation on the Drudge Report that Clinton staffers had circulated a photo of Barack Obama wearing Somali tribal dress, Singer let 'er rip.
"I find it interesting that in a room of such esteemed journalists that Mr. Drudge has become your respected assignment editor," he lectured. "I find it to be a reflection of one of the problems that's gone on with the overall coverage of this campaign." He went on to chide the journalists for their "woefully inadequate" coverage of Obama, "a point that has been certainly backed up by the 'Saturday Night Live' skit that opened the show this past Saturday evening, which I would refer you all to."
The brief moment explained everything about the bitter relations between Clinton's campaign and the media: Singer taunting the likes of Broder, who began covering presidential politics two decades before Singer was born, with a comedy sketch that showed debate moderators fawning over Obama.
"That's your assignment editor?" responded Post columnist Ruth Marcus.
"That's my assignment editor," Singer affirmed.
Trust me, there is more hilarity in the story and I can hardly wait for Broder, Marcus, et al to begin to incorporate this in their columns.
Richard Cohen, a Democrat apparatchik to be sure but, to his credit, never among the first rank of Clinton fellatistos, makes an interesting observation on the Clinton campaign:
There is dissension in the Hillary Clinton camp. Top aides have been in arguments, shouting back and forth about differences in strategy. Should Clinton come on strong? Should she go negative? Should she be upbeat and positive? Here's my answer: Stop campaigning.
The evidence is overwhelming that since Super Tuesday, the minute that Clinton steps foot in a state, her numbers start to plummet. [...]
Big-money Democrats have been on the phone of late, and their conversations have been on how to get Clinton out of the race. Some of these Democrats were tepid Clinton backers to begin with, wishing to go with the presumed winner or responding to the soft extortion of Bill Clinton and his allies. But others were sincerely committed and now fear that the Clintons, she and he, will not know how to lose -- and will take the Democratic Party down with them.
Now that power has started to slip from the grasp of the ersatz political jalopy constructed by the Clintons, they are fast finding out who are their real friends. It is becoming increasingly clear that the national media is not among them. So why did they carry water for the Clintons and destroy their own credibility in the process? Who knows. Who cares.
How about a little more butter on that popcorn?
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Would Obama Destroy McCain? — Comments (66) »
What Are Friends For? 10 Comments (0 topical, 10 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
No way HRC is offered the VP spot. No way she would accept even if offered. If you're Obama, would you want Bill Clinton stumping for you after seeing how much he's poisoned his wife's campaign? Plus, the media has finally caught up with the rest of the country and is now suffering from Clinton Fatigue. If you're Hillary, why willingly subordinate yourself to someone who beat you? Clintons don't like finishing second and don't accept the silver gratefully or gracefully. Remember, she's been the second banana once already in her husband's administration and I just can't see her accepting the same role. Actually, she would be third banana at best as I would imagine Barack and/or Michelle would keep her as far away as possible. Either that or employ food tasters. Shakespeare has nothing on the plotting that the Clintons engage in. They need to be purged from the political system once and for all.
Cheers,
Scott in Indy
When you start to be ridiculed as comedy, its bad. Given the press's inability to get the news it may take them awhile to realize this.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Their infatuation with the Clintons is over and now they have a new crush. They will turn on Obama too eventually, when they realize he will not bring peace on earth, end poverty, cure death and make really good cafe lattes.
NC
That simple. Liberals love power, absent that their every bumble is apparent. Even when a grossly unqualified Hillary ran for the Senate in 2000, after shoplifting the White House, the media supported her. The aura was still there but it evaporated over time and after a bland and inconsequential senate career.
Barack fills certain criteria, he's ultra liberal, a fresh face, he talks crap [very important to liberals], and he's African-American, providing liberals with the possibility of a big first for them given their messianic dedication to identity politics.
Not to be ignored is that the Clinton's were permitted to be nasty to everyone previously but that endemic nastiness was never to be used against a fellow Democrat. Only when it's turned against one of their own does it become unforgivable and the Clinton's, in their typical stupidity, violated a cardinal rule.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
if Hillary wants a future, she may not get on Obama's ticket. McCain has a chance to win; Hillary knows this. She's 60. Maybe it's better, for her not be on Obama's ticket. This way, she lets all the Dem powers that be know, "see I told you so" if he loses. The party comes back under the Clinton's powerful grip once more. If Obama wins, she's stuck for eight years regardless, so why help him if you really want to be president. The only way Hillary every gets back into the WH is if Obama loses; he might not lose if she is on the ticket.
Just a thought!
I don't think Hillary would want to be on the ticket and I don't think Obama would want her there.
I think you're right that if Hillary does not get the nomination she will be saying "I told you so" when he loses. That, however, does not make a compelling case for her candidacy in 2012. If anything, everyone has seen what kind of a horrible candidate she is.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I think this guy pretty much nails a lot of unspoken sentiment:
http://brookesnews.com/082502obama.html
Kate
“It is the American vice, the democratic disease which expresses its tyranny by reducing everything unique to the level of the herd.” Henry Miller
Get out the fork! Unless Clinton wants to duke it out at the democrat convention this summer, she's going to have to hone a whole speech about what an "honor" it is to be with Barak Obama and that the party will be just fine.
I forsee a gracious and smiling Clinton waving goodbye and then making a "defeat" tour to throngs of supporters who will cheer her, tell her they love her, and make her feel better about her impending trip into the political wilderness. Probably the mainstream press will roll out some kind of quasi-tribute as well.
But when it's all over - - and the music fades and all the "Hilllary" placards get tossed into the recycle bins, Clinton will go back to a US Senate filled with old white guys who won't be afraid of her anymore. Which will work out fine because her heart isn't going to be in anything remotely resembling Senate scut work. This will be her last term and probably relishes the chance to deliver her version of the "you won't have Nixon to kick around anymore" speech.
All I can say is thank you Barak Obama. Because of you democrats everywhere can kick the Clintons in the groin - - something they've all wanted to secretly do for a long time - - without having to vote for a republican to do it.
This country today has a one party news media. The only language it speaks is Socialism. Barack Hussein Obama is currently reading out loud from the playbook written by Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Nikita Kruschev, Mao Tse Tung, Ho Chi Ming, and others. The Clintons occassionally deviated from that playbook. The media is enthralled by the present recitation being given by Mr Obama.
One thing to remember is that German people fainted at speeches being given by Adolph Hitler.
Something tells me that Mrs. Clinton won't go gently into that good night. Dennis Miller made an interesting point on O'Reilly last week that her only play left is to make a deal and get Barry to give her the VP nod. Then, when McCain cleans Barack's CLOCK in the general election (I expect sometime around April 1 Barack will have peaked because he'll have to actually articulate an actual position) she'll be ready in 2012 to try again.
I could be wrong, of course, but if Barack takes out Hillary! for us I think we all owe him a debt of gratitude before we get behind McCain and take him out in the general. Just one man's opinion.
"Logic refutes liberalism" - Rush Limbaugh