Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Soul-less in the Heartland
By Courtney Goodloe
For me, tonight's '60 Minutes' - was the final, irretrievable, burned, broken, bombed, never-to-be-repaired bridge.
If anyone had any question about Clinton's character (or deficiency thereof) tonight was exhibit 'A' - for amoral. Well, we're probably all the way down to exhibit 'Z' with her but 'A' works better.
Kroft's thoughtful piece about all of the forces at play in battleground Ohio encountered the laughable, kindergarteny smears about Obama's patriotism and 'secret Muslim' identity.
Ironically, Kroft corrected a potential Obama supporter - who said his only lingering doubts were with respect to these rumors. Kroft - to his credit - said forcefully, "You know that's not true, don't you?" But given an opportunity to take the same high-road - Clinton - in only the way a Clinton could - said, "I take him at his word" - which is a wink and a nod rather than a sincere rejection of this crap as preposterous. Once again Kroft, in a moment of pure journalistic integrity, pushed her on the point - ultimately exposing her as the true hack that she is. He wasn't Ed Bradley's protege and friend for nothing. Anyone still question who sent the photo to Drudge?
This is the same low road taken way back when, leading up to the South Carolina primary. Clinton surrogates like Shaheen, B. Kerrey, A. Cuomo, Robert Johnson and the chief-surrogate, Bill - dropped innuendo subtle and not so - then pretended they were perplexed about the uproar as they fled.
South Carolina and every state thereafter resoundingly rejected the Clinton machine's tactics - Clintonian soon to replace Orwellian -- voting for Obama across all demographic lines - restoring my much tested faith in the electorate.
Please, Texas and Ohio do the same.
Comments (15)
This is just depressing.
March 2, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is an extended discussion on this topic at
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/why-i-was-ashamed-watching-60.php
Over there, I also bring up how Andy Rooney pushed, in a subtle way, the notion of a HRC presidency. So much for the media picking on her exclusively.
March 2, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Single biggest myth of this election, IMHO. She's been given a total pass on the 'experience' front. No one questions it at all. Everyone has been so focused on Obama's rhetorical flourishes that no one seems to notice that she just keeps saying 'experience, 'vetted' and similar such nonsense without ever justifying any of it.
While there's no doubt in my mind that the Clintons both have their detractors, to accuse the media of being unfair when they've completed neglected to analyze the central claim of her campaign is absolutely ridiculous.
March 3, 2008 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
DF -
Agree totally. The reason I raise Clintonian as Orwellian is how often they get away w/ the Alice in Wonderland mirror-effect.
She complains of media treatment - while for example, last night Obama had to once again address ridiculous irrelevant questions re his patriotism and faith. This while she fields NO questions re tax returns or personal loans to campaign or why her White House Papers are being secreted away or Clinton library donors.
Much like in the days after the Drudge photo and her campaign was either behind it or totally inept in answering the allegation -- she's on her 'picking on me speech tour' - THIS WHILE THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE is picking apart the photo which keeps getting reprinted and shown over and over again.
Much like she conveniently forgets the free magic carpet ride she enjoyed w/ the media during her 'inevitability' phase - b/c she was so far ahead in money and polls - - but suddenly can't seem to understand that your opponent will also get favorable coverage w/ favorable results.
All the while talking about how tough she is and can take it. WHAT? So what's with all the complaining? Taking it is putting your head down and going to work.
But w/ both Clintons, up is down, down is up, black is white. 'Tis exhausting.
March 3, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT-
I checked out the discussion - lively to say the least!
I also had that same feeling re Rooney - but b/c my head was still spinning over Hil & I often think of him as someone who should be out to pasture already I didn't dwell.
But you hit it on the head. He's exactly the sort of crusty, curmudgeon who'd be put off-balance by and suspicious of the young whipper-snapper upsetting the natural order of things.
March 3, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
She would have done better if people had actually questioned it and looked. She has quite a bit of diverse, relevant experience that only needs a jaunt to Wikipedia to find out.
Go watch some clips at www.thehillaryiknow.com
March 3, 2008 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Though it's obvious you believe this, I don't think it's true. What experience does she have that's relevant to becoming the President? She's served in public office for seven years. In that time she's accomplished very little as a legislator. Her record in the US Senate is thinner than Obama's even though his tenure in the Senate is only half as long.
I submit to you that, instead of insisting that she would have done better if people had examined her record, they have indeed examined it and judged it inferior. I know I did.
This is the Internet. This is TPM. Do you really think that the readership here hasn't looked the candidates up on Wikipedia? You offer this and suggest in earnest that we would be convinced if we would only do this? Are you delusional?
I'll pass on the Clinton commercials, thanks. I've seen enough of this woman to last me ten lifetimes.
March 3, 2008 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her deficiency of character, integrity, honesty and graciousness have been exposed throughout this campaign. I'm appalled that she still is viable (and we won't know until tomorrow how much stomach America still has for this bile).
She couldn't even be decent on this obvious issue -- she had to calculate if she could say the right thing and still seed the doubt. How in the world can we trust this woman to run the free world?
Americans seem to love blood sport in their politics, no matter that the approach has distracted us from important issues and led us to disgrace in the world. It's been heartening to me to see as many people as there are who want to see this change. This is not the petty kind of change HIllary talks about -- "I'll get you a few cents more in the minimum wage and call it change", but a change in how we present ourselves as a nation. This always comes from the President. For good or ill, the President sets the tone for the entire country.
So with Hillary as President, we get Bush with a huge, festering chip on her shoulder who's going to get revenge and "rule" instead of "govern". As her entitlement. And drag America through her personal mud, again.
God, I hope we are better than this, this time. There is so much damage to correct, the next four years are critical.
I hope we pass the test on Tuesday.
March 3, 2008 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
57 -
I really took note of your point re the kind of change - and the contrast between petty and grand.
Thank you.
March 3, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're disgusted by this coming from within the party, I'd recommend eating solid food between now and November, because this is absolutely no different than the little dance the GOP is doing right now.
Anonymous chud says X. The National GOP and/or John McCain pretend to be offended and feigns walking away in disgust. Anonymous chud's word is still out there.
The one positive thing I see is the potential that, in the long run, all of this crap will have been out there for so long that people will have had plenty of time to be active in reaching out and debunking it. The one truly sad thing I see is the potential that we live in a country supposedly full to the brim with followers of Christ, supposedly with a Constitution that separates church and state, and yet it is a smear to suggest that someone is not a Christian. I don't know if it's worse that people feel it is a valid tactic, or that some poor souls out there are proving them right.
March 3, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm thoroughly disgusted with you and the rest of the bloggers who are trying to smear Clinton with this crap. Why is it so difficult to understand, "of course not" or "no,no,no"? What's so damned hard to understand about her firing the two campaign workers who had sent each other that e-mail back in the beginning of the campaign? What is so incomprehensible to you about her empathy that this kind of thing has happened to her and she understands it?
March 3, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
We did not do anything to your candidate - she has done this to herself. Because talking from 3 sides of one's mouth is not convincing. One of the most message-disciplined pols in history, can't control the sludge coming from her campaign.
If we're so wrong - what's w/ all the apologies and firings? When her surrogates and staff repeatedly dropped this crap - only to be scolded or fired - the dance becomes old. Clearly, after the first one or two incidents - if you're not being subtly encouraged - then the crap would cease. No one would be mistaken about what was acceptable on her behalf or not. But to have people so obviously, repeatedly fall on their swords - right after getting the smear out there and the hoped for 'damage' is farcical. Need I recount just a few famous hits for you?
Kerrey's - madrassa-educated Muslim
Cuomo's - shuck and jive
Shaheen's - Repubs will raise drug dealing
Wolfson's - cocaine, cocaine, cocaine, cocaine ditty
Johnson's - don't know what he was doing back in the 'hood back in the day
Embarrassing isn't it. Thou dost protest a bit too loudly - when you're probably secretly appalled that she's betrayed your trust in this way. Her historic run should have been majestic not gutter driven. Aren't you getting tired of having to re-paste this defense each and every-where after each and every 'incident'?
March 3, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh bullshit. No, I'm getting tired of so-called dems like you who are so short-sighted, so unethical, so wingnuttian as to make Ann Coulter look reasonable. "We saw McCain take the high road"?? Are you insane? Have you lost all sense of proportion, all sense of decency of common sense, of rational thought that you could say something like that and then dare to compare him to Clinton?
Honest to god, some of you people have the attention span of circus monkeys? Who in the hell has been playing the dirty tricks, who has dragged politicians through the gutter, who has robbed us blind and taken us from the largest economic expansion in our history to a 7 trillion dollar debt? Who does Karl Rove work for, Al Raymond? It sure as hell isn't dems and it sure as hell isn't Clinton. Who in the hell do you think is floating this e-mail, these pictures? Are you really that blind that you can't see repub written all over this? It STARTED in a conservative magazine, do you not know that?
As for the incredibly stupid, stupid comment about Cunningham and McCain, the two of them and McCain's campaign manager met THREE times before this rally. Doesn't that look like a set up to you? And you have no idea as to what that wackjob said about Clinton, do you?
Democrats are their own worse enemy.
March 3, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain does not benefit from the smearing of Obama - as the only groups who'll be in play for both parties in the gen'l are Indies and moderate Repubs - who would be repulsed. Hence his 'appearing' to take the high road - sorry irony is lost on you.
What's been so disappointing about Clinton's campaign is that it's exactly from the Atwater/Rovian playbook.
I noticed you failed to address any of the list of incidents where her campaign did take responsibility - over and over again - and that instead of addressing them you resort to name calling. How profoundly frustrated you are.
March 5, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The insidiousness of the smear is not the obvious - which is always immediately pointed out as bigoted - but the implication that Obama is a lying, deceptive 'Manchurian Candidate' (anyone see Cunningham's use of that gem?) who'd only be hiding his faith if he wished to do us harm. The idea that after all these years of political cynicism - c'mon people, anything that seems too good to be true, is.
Sadly, we know there's a demo out there that will take pause on the basis of the faith itself. But the air of it all is designed to reach others too - that someone capable of lying about their faith - something which is close to their heart - makes them evil and w/ nefarious motives - which of course ties neatly back into the obvious.
Generally (excepting the 60 Minutes panel-member last night which I found odd), the people attracted to Obama's campaign are not the demo who'd be anti-Muslim - but we also have the fence-sitters taking a look at the phenomenon who might be swayed by the 'proven quantity/do I really know him/could he be hedging here' arguments.
Of course we expected it from the Repubs. But it's beyond saddening to see how much electorate-softening up her campaign is doing for the opposition.
At first I believed that her using all their potential greatest hits would defuse them - then it occurred to me that after Clinton has dragged us in the gutter, we may face a special and new tactic in Nov. We got a hint already from the Cunningham flap. We saw McCain take the high road by denouncing him immediately (in great contrast w/ the Clinton camp's weak non-denial denials after the photo incident). So all he need do is let surrogate Repubs & 527s hint that 'well even someone in his own party had these suspicions' - while McCain floats above it all.
March 3, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment