Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Speaking of the Writers' Strik... | Savage Love Letter of the Day »

Monday, January 21, 2008

Re: An Open Letter to the Liberal Media

posted by on January 21 at 12:33 PM

You have to admit, ECB, Hillary “Inevitable!” Rodham Clinton brought a little itsy bit of that upon herself. (Bill the Mighty Attack Dog isn’t helping, either.) And I fully expect a post-SC Obama victory, if it happens, to be attributed to black voters. But we shall see.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post has an interesting new national poll out (full results here). Since early December, HRC is down 11 points and Obama is up 14 nationally. Among likely Democratic voters, HRC is five points above Obama, but among all Ds and D-leaning independents, it’s only 2 points—a statistical tie. And for the Rs, it’s looking more and more like McCain.

RSS icon Comments


"Obama for America!" YEAH!!!!!! Party over here party over there!!!!

Oh, and Hillary would do well to have Bill Clinton shut the fuck up. He is starting to piss off Obama supporters, the very supporters Hillary would need (if she gets the nomination) to win in November.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | January 21, 2008 12:45 PM

Yes, @1. Bill Clinton has become a serious asshole in the past couple of weeks. Hasn't he brought enough embarassment upon his wife for one lifetime? Between this and the Muslim drug-dealer crap, it's getting harder and harder to imagine ever pulling the lever for Clinton in November without throwing up.

God, I need a drink.

Posted by blaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh | January 21, 2008 12:51 PM

Whole lotta kool aid drinking going on.

New poll shows that after his big media splash Obama is 5 points down from Clinton among likely D's:

this is spun as she's somehow behind.

As for Bill the attack dog, I'm glad someone challenged Obama on something because you can be goddamn sure the right wing will and the press isn't doing it's job. Obama did drugs. Said pot helped him. Gee, is that going to be a problem in the general election? Let's close our eyes to it.

Obama said he would not know how he would have voted had he been in the Senate. Is that a problem n a general election? Nope, let's close our eyes to it.

Obama praised Regan for making the GOP the party of ideas for the last 15 years. Any problem there in a general election? Duh, I dunno, let's close our eyes to it.

Obama's top contributor list includes Exelion (or some super nuclear company). Any problem in the general election when he says he is above all this lobbying and insider and money and donations crap? Let's close our eyes to it.

Obama recently said Bill's comments were "troubling" and "at odds with the facts." Sounded like a law professor. Totally noncommunicative. Failed to deliver any message at all.

Anyway, here's a different take on Bill the Alpha dog from dickpolman's blog:
"A candidate never looks good when he complains about being attacked and about the general unfairness of it all. .... And the Clintons are no doubt delighted with Obama's response, because every second that he expends on them, complaining about them and trying to refute them, is one less second expended on his own message.
.... With the Feb. 5 mega-primaries looming, it would be prohibitively expensive to run TV ads in all the big states; the wiser Clintonian option is to dispatch Bill hither and yon, particularly to the large cities on both coasts (New York, California, and New Jersey all vote on Feb. 5), because he's a free-media magnet."
If Obama can't win an argument with Clinton, how's he going to win an argument with the right wing smear machine?

Posted by unPC | January 21, 2008 12:59 PM

Hillary voted to let Bush use force, Hillary voted to protect banks from average Americans filing bankruptcy, Hillary sat on the board of WalMart (a company widely acclaimed for it's support of workers *cough cough*) Hillary also defended Coca Cola AGAINST a suit brought against it from disabled employees.

But we are to believe she is an agent of .... "CHANGE".

Hillary gets the nomination I am voting for a third party. (yeah still pissed about Cornball comparing me to a Nazi symphathizer for changing my mind yesterday on Eli's post)

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | January 21, 2008 1:06 PM


Yeah, it's a good thing Hillary acts just like a Republican, as long as she doesn't, uh, win and get an opportunity to keep acting like a Republican.

Posted by MHD | January 21, 2008 1:13 PM

the past couple weeks have only re-affirmed why i fucking hate the clintons.

she will probably get the nomination, but at what cost? they seem to think they can alienate a significant percentage of the party base and still count on their vote in november. W R O N G. if i even bother to vote, it will be for anyone but hillary - sorry, the clintons.

Posted by brandon | January 21, 2008 1:15 PM

The thing--one of the things--I've hated about the last eight years has been the Right Wing Talking Points that seem to issue daily, to be regurgitated ad nauseum in the mainstream press.

Now I'm seeing regurgitated Left Wing Talking Points and not particularly liking them any better.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | January 21, 2008 1:20 PM

To the Clinton haters:
You seem to be complaining that Obama is getting...campaigned against.

Did you think Hilary would just fade away and give up? Not respond? Not argue? Not attack? Not point out flaws in Obama? (The way the intellectual college-student loving McGovern, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry basically gave up on so many levels?)

The only thing the Clintons have done in the last few weeks is....campaign against Obama. The same way they would campaign against the GOP.

If he can't take that heat, he ain't gonna win in November. Whatever the Clintons have thrown at him is about 1/1000th of what the right wing will throw at him.

Why not answer the charges, make his case, and tell us why he's great, instead of complaining that he got campaigned against?

Posted by unPC | January 21, 2008 1:33 PM

re unPC @ 3, yeah the Clinton's may take Obama down, but in doing so the foul taste they leave may doom them to failure as well. Every time either Bill or Hil open their mouths about Obama I am less inclined to support them.

Posted by gnossos | January 21, 2008 1:35 PM

If it is Hillary who gets the nomination I will vote for anyone else, even McCain, before I will vote for that bitch.

Posted by Wow | January 21, 2008 1:37 PM

@10 - ron paul?

Posted by some dude | January 21, 2008 1:49 PM

unPC - the issue is that this is an intra-party smear campaign the clintons are engaged in, and it goes beyond just the standard one-upsmanship of political campaigning [have you been paying attention at all?]. also, the fact that a former president is using his political clout to basically help himself to a backdoor 3rd term re-election isn't exactly endearing people to them.

i personally don't like when the clintons are slinging mud across the aisle; politics as usual, perhaps, but i still don't like it. when they're doing it within their own party, i'm completely turned off, to the point that even after 8 years of bush, i will still vote republican in november if she's the nominee.

Posted by brandon | January 21, 2008 2:09 PM

That's how Bush got in - conflicted voters voting against their own self interests. So go ahead and vote Republican because Hillary or whomever you despise is not the candidate you wished. This action will fulfill the suggestion: "If you don't like the news, make some of your own."

Posted by Democrats Spitefully Cut Off Own Noses | January 21, 2008 2:57 PM

@10: i totally would not have a problem voting for john mccain against hilary. at least he's upfront about being a prick.

Posted by j-zeezer | January 21, 2008 3:05 PM

my self interests include not having a corrupt, lying, morally bankrupt president. see, my principles come before any party loyalty.

Posted by brandon | January 21, 2008 3:24 PM

Jesus Fucking Christ, people, get a grip! Hillary Clinton is not a Republican, and Obama isn't a giant fraud. #7 is right--you're ALL engaging in embarrassing talking points for your candidates, and you're all basically fucking wrong. Both of these candidates are a million times better than the best Republican, and one of them is going to be the nominee. It helps no one to engage in scorched earth politics and threaten to take your liberal ball and go home (or even worse, vote for a Republican!) Are you all insane?

Posted by Cascadian | January 21, 2008 3:37 PM

I'm totally with #16, above.

And I strongly disagree with Annie Wagner, who suggests that Hillary "brought...that on herself." ("That" being biased media.) In her original post, what Erica Barnett faults the media for is casting a female candidate in a negative light by using rhetorical terms suggestive of weakness, e.g. the passive voice ("Vote of Women Propels Clinton").
Barnett then contrasts this with the positive, strong rhetoric used in reporting Obama's campaign.

Clinton has not 'brought this on herself'--she is not editing/writing for these newspapers. The editors/writers are bringing it on, as usual.

Posted by English Major | January 21, 2008 7:46 PM

Hello, Obamatons? I like your candidate a little bit less every time you use the word "bitch." Do you really want us to start using racial epithets for your candidate? Thought not.

Posted by Big Sven | January 21, 2008 10:07 PM

Hillary supporters, take a deep breath and understand that no matter how much you admire your candidate, her husband never got a majority of the popular vote (43% in 1992 and 49% in 1996) and she is far less popular than he. If McCain is nominated, a whole lotta Bible-thumpers are staying home. Ditto Giulani and Romney. Unless Hillary runs. Then all the Rs turn out in full force. And WE HAVE TO LIVE UNDER ANOTHER FUCKING REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT. I'm SICK of living under Republican presidents. Is there a Hillary-supporter who actually thinks she can win the general election, and if so, how? (I mean, any reason other than that she will be just as much of an asshole as a candidate as the Republican smear-machine will put forth--cuz I don't think she wins playing that game.)

Posted by loss ahead | January 21, 2008 10:30 PM

Uh, Big Sven @18: There are lots of folks who are not "Obamatons" who think HRC is a bitch. It's awfully presumptive of you to think that the candidate with the highest negative ratings is disliked only by Obama supporters.

Posted by others here | January 21, 2008 10:39 PM

others here @ 20:

There are other candidates in the race? Is Gephardt running again?

Let me restate my point, since you seem intent on ignoring it. Calling Clinton a "bitch" is sexist.

The good news for you is that the english language has many perjoratives that aren't predicated on the subject's having or not having a vagina: dingleberry, fucktard, asshat, fartknocker, Edwards-like... The list is essentially infinite.

Posted by Big Sven | January 22, 2008 8:45 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).