Eric Boehlert over at Media Matters has an excellent article up about the press treats Clinton. He contrasts him with the treatment of Bush, but the point holds.

http://mediamatters.org/column...

As Eric notes, it is due to what Atrios has named "The Clinton Rules of Journalism," which he defines as, "They really like they can say anything about them."

http://atrios.blogspot.com/200...

.

Thanks for referencing it.  I've only one nitpick, but it's a doozy.  It's the mention by Boehlert about Clinton's "ill advised and unscripted comments" that inflamed the Obama supporters.  On rereading those comments I see nothing ill advised or remotely racist or disparaging in any manner to one's race.

What people were reacting to, I propose, was NOT what Clinton said but rather to the spinning comments put out by Obama's people (that's politics, Johnny Cochrane politics) and the followup comments by almost ALL the press and pundits, comments which, upon review of those Clinton remarks, do not hold up.  You've written about those Clinton comments and know what I'm saying is correct, and you've said so too.  But even Boehlert's relatively positive piece contains that same slur on the Clinton remarks (although later in the piece he seems to mitigate his commentary).

When you can't say that a person was not consistently against the Iraq war if they then voted for further funding of that war, that such a supposed anti-war stance is a fairy tale contradicted by the funding vote, without you being accused of racism, that's bullcrap.  And Hillary's remark about Johnson being necessary to carry out MLK's dreams being spun as racist propaganda, well, that's bullcrap too.  Of the worst sort.

These spinners and the totally shameful acceptance of falsity is a disgrace to the 4th estate and other media.  We saw how after endless repeated "Gore said he invented the Internet"  remarks, people believed Gore actually said it.  Even today, that blithering moron, that vacant-headed blathering bag of conceit, Chris Matthews, continues to repeat that bull, saying that "it was Gore's conceited personality that caused him to lie" about inventing the Internet, and it cost him the election.

I've nothing against Obama, but I'd feel better if Hillary was in the White House.  THAT IS ALL.  And I don't need hope--what I need is for someone to differentiate between what Obama talks about in vague, otiose ways, and the same otiose remarks from many, countless, prior candidates (I'm a uniter, not a divider.  I will bring this country together."  And, "I'm a compassionate conservative.").  As Harry James played, I've heard that song before.

I won't trash others on this site like flipper, Rebecca, et al do.  I just regret the flight from truth and the easy acceptance of spin that has become the culture of our media and now, unfortunately, Raising Kaine, as well.
   

soccerdem,

You've remarked on this numerous times, so I'd just like to rebut your argument re: the war funding.

Obama was not simply making an idle speech about the Iraq war, he made it while in the midst of a very fiercely contested Democratic primary in Illinois. Even in Illinois this was a risky bet to place your political fortunes on in 2003 and 2004.

You have stated multiple times that one cannot be considered anti-war wrt Iraq if they continue to vote for the funding. I think that that's wrong. Neither Obama, nor Jim Webb, was in the Senate in order to vote against the AUMF. However, now that the war is ongoing, both men have decided to continue to vote for funding because they feel it would be irresponsible to play shell games with the troops in the field. I, personally, would have preferred that they would have found some way to form an anti-war coalition that used their numbers in the Senate to change some aspect of the trajectory of this war, but they are surrounded by many cowards in that institution, and these intelligent men both realize the reality of where they are.

Just because neither of them believes in the radical approach to ending the conflict does not mean that they have very different positions and records than those that voted to allow this war. It is fallacious to suggest otherwise.

There were a series of remarks that Bill, and then Hillary, Clinton made that had absolutely nothing to do with race. The first was the "fairy tale" remark that Donna Brazille went off on, and then the MLK/LBJ remark. There is evidence, specifically a leaked memo, to suggest that it was the Obama campaign that was pushing the narrative to reporters that these were racial comments. Perhaps I'm too much of a cynic, but I find it entirely plausible that heading into a primary where 50% of the voters were African American, the Obama campaign might have thought it would benefit their candidate to gin up a racial divide -- and, in fact, it clearly did. Our craven and callow national media was only too happy to comply.

Even Bill Clinton's comments the day of the primary to the effect that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, well, lets just say that it gave lots of folks the vapors, but Jesse Jackson himself did not consider it to be a racist remark. One last point on that is that a few days ago, Steve Clemons reported that far from being a part of some overarching campaign strategy to minimize Hillary Clinton's loss in South Carolina, the remark resulted from personal pique on the part of Bill Clinton who felt that Obama had unfairly denigrated his record and accomplishments in the so-called Reagan comments.

Make of it what you will, but here is my takeaway. Bill and Hillary Clinton are adept politicians, but not every utterance, every facial tick, every eye movement and hand gesture are part of some grand political strategy. In the final analysis, they are people with foibles, tempers and weaknesses. Like all of us, they are sometimes petty, sometimes egotistical, sometimes selfish, but like few of us (me included) they have been willing to put their asses on the line against withering and unfair abuse to fight for something they believe in on behalf of millions of people. Bill Clinton -- and no, he is not perfect -- has probably accomplished more good for people in this country, personally, than any person currently alive.

I love the energy, passion and commitment that Obama supporters bring to their candidate, but the treatment of Bill and Hillary Clinton -- the unsupported allegations, the innuendo, the subtext of overt sexism, to mention a few things, has been indecent.

Obama HAS stated that he didn't know how he would have voted had he been a member of the Senate at the time of that fatal vote.  No matter what position he was in when he spoke out against the war (and I don't know his exact words), by his own admission he sees Hillary's vote for the war authority as possibly being no different from what he might have done.  This sounds like had he been in the Senate, along with Hillary, he might have caved in to the situational demands of the times; i.e., that we were going to mop them up quickly and one would look foolish afterwards not to have given Bush the authority to stomp the Iraqis.  Of course, no mention of the morality of the war.

And frankly, I despise Hillary's war authorization vote and have said so many times, and I would have preferred Chris Dodd over her.  And a vote to stop funding the war is not so radical as you say--it's what they did in the Viet Nam war and it stopped further American troops from being slaughtered.

I don't think it's a shell game to stop the funding--a shell game is what Bush is doing with HIS funding games. And I don't think it would be irresponsible.  Don't forget, all sources I've read (Republicans and Democrats)stated that there was enough pipeline bucks to keep the war going for months in the event of a funds cutoff, and we could have phased the troops out.  Also, don't forget, the so-called Iraq govt wasn't doing squat to help the situation.  I won't write about the poor Viets--they got screwed 8 ways to Friday, at least the ones that the CIA didn't rescue, as did the Iraqi population, but that's another story.

Considering that Obama DID say what he did about not knowing how he would have voted had he been in the Senate, and then he voted to fund the troops just as Hillary did, effectively they are in the same boat!  Keeping a war going. It's not, Ron1, that I think one cannot be anti-Iraq war and still vote to fund the damned thing--it's that I don't see an iota's difference between both their stances.  And to try to get THIS Congress to agree on an anti-war stance, to try and get the cowards, as you correctly call them, to buck up against Bush or for the Democratic Congress members to form a coalition with the Republicans who are sticking to Bush as he sinks, that would indeed take forever.

Finally, the so-called radical approach would also force the Iraquis to get off the pot or doom themselves to eternal internecine conflict, or at least until another Sadaam came along.  But at least our troops would come home and stop wasting their time and lives for an Iraqi government which seems to live for anomie.  

I'm with you in terms of the realities of cutting off the funding, and I think most of your analysis is spot on.

I will say I disagree strongly with your characterization of Obama's remarks from the Democratic convention in '04 -- I think he was merely trying to distract attention from how his war stance contradicted the stance of Kerry and Edwards, trying not to make it a big issue before his speech. His anti-war speech in '03 was so powerful that that's what leads me to disregard his hedging remarks in '04, but I concede that your interpretation is also a realistic way to see these events.

I would have loved to have seen some leadership from him, or Hillary, or Jim Webb, frankly, on the war issue, or the FISA issue, something. It would have made my decision so much easier. [Like you, I was a Dodd supporter, because of his magisterial performance on standing up for the Constitution during the FISA debate; I only became an Obama supporter once it became clear that Dodd was going to drop out. Although, it must be said, Dodd was on the wrong side of the AUMF in 2002, as well.] But since none of those Senators, nor Russ Feingold, seem to be able to muster such stands, I have to concede that they are just too small a minority, fending off conservative idiot Dems like Mary Landrieu and Mark Pryor and Ben Nelson and also the quavering and whimpering "leadership" of Harry Reid and Dick Durbin, et al., to be able to succeed in this august body where 49 Republicans can still apparently control the agenda.

As such, since Iraq and foreign policy are my top priorities (along with restoring Constitutionalism and investigating the abuses of the Bush Presidency), I am drawn to the candidate that showed superior judgment in 2002. Barack is the only major Dem candidate to be on the right side of the Iraq war question, and I think that needs desperately to be rewarded. Also, I think Barack is capable of inspiring the country in a way that Hillary is not that might allow us to toss out a larger number of these fools from the Senate this fall.

But if you question the sincerity of Barack's stances, and think them more shell game than conviction, I completely understand why you choose to vote for a very qualified Hillary instead. Hopefully, whichever one takes the oath of office next January will not disappoint us and will indeed end this godforsaken war. But we won't know for sure until the day she/he declares it to be so.

Though some may find this too cynical to swallow, I truly believe that Congress is composed of 500 people who are basically con men/women solely looking out for themselves, their only true belief being that to get re-elected is EVERYTHING, and that the public gets the crumbs they throw out to get re-elected--no more than that.  It defies reason to believe otherwise, for what we have are the not-so-rich suddenly becoming potentates to whom everyone bows, who can eat out free at parties, an embassy, a rubber chicken fund-raiser, a home of a wealthy patron, etc.  Sure, some start in by sharing an apt. in D.C., but ater a couple of terms they know theycan get the brass ring, the big money jobs that entail work of the order of merely poicking up the phone and saying, "Joe, how about doing me a little favor--remember my last vote for you about building that Rubber Band Museum in Hartford?"  And for that call, the Govt of Crapola pays him #275K.  Ask Vernon Jordan, the "facilitator" in 2500 buck suits.  They don't paractice law, they practice reminiscin (sp.).

As for the rich, lile Romney, they habe the Rolexes, the Rollls or BMW, the 28,000 sq. ft. home, etc., now they can get the kingly rewards--the groveling before royalty, the deference to swelled heads and egos that being a pol ensures.

I saw the actions of 1 man, I'll use as an example.  Lee Hamilton, a respected...what?  Always, a "man of respect."  With one stroke of ignorance of what he was doing he wiped out thousands of dollars of Title II disability dollars that claimants could have gotten and shunted that money to the hands of lawyers who could have spent a mere 2 to 4 hours on the case.  I won't detail this, but trust me, this goes on everywhere.  They ALL get bought off and it's called "compromise."  I have absolutely no hope for Congress, the way politics is now--the monetary and egotistical rewards are SO great that one would have to be an absolute moron or perhaps a Saint to turn them down.  It's like being in the back seat with Jessica Albo and your wife is out of town.  You stay faithful, Right?

Maybe it's because I'm old and have seen the Obamas come and go, but I fully (again, that word) believe that a vote for him should be divorced from the ideas he's spoting, which I've heard hundreds of times over the last 60 years (I'm older than that), and almost every time it's BS, or at the very least those words of "hope" become BS after a year or so of on the job compromises and the rewards you get for those compromises, which are bountiful and endless.

Now, my wife just interupted me to tell me that Obama will not debate Hillary, turning debates down.  It's the mark of a winner, sure, but it certainly reinforces my cynical beliefs.

All I ask is that you don't dismiss my remarks as those of a cynical churlish fool, with no hope in his bones.  It's not tru, for I'm a happy person except when it comes to pols--and those beliefs on Pols that I hold may have started with reading AJ Liebling and others, countless books and real life observation over the years, teaching politics in University, and so on.  I don't believe in those Obama words, and I do believe those words are political horseshit.  But I also believe, very strongly, in fact, that Obama is worth supporting and voting for if you believe he can beat the Republican old man--that's pragmatism, which I like.  For me, as I,ve said, it's just that I feel more comfortable with Hillary and Bill nearby, even if Bill once again was getting the perks HE enjoys.

Bon Chance!  

Before we kiss let me say in the words of the immortal critic of Freud, "Sometimes a cigar i just a cigar."  You are so correct.  A few, of course see this, but like the Gore internet lie, when horseshit is spread around, something will grow quickly and be consumed whole.

And your penultimate paragraph is so right on, it's just great.  I think in particular of the first (I believe) bill signed by Bill Clinton, the Family Leave Act.  That little signature did more good for more families than all the work of the current president and his Big Daddy.

Thanks for great words, aznew.