You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gene Lyons: "Clinton’s clearly this campaign’s Beltway pinata, a calculating phony like Gore" [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-01-07 03:30 PM
Original message
Gene Lyons: "Clinton’s clearly this campaign’s Beltway pinata, a calculating phony like Gore"
Advertisements [?]
Lest anybody tell you different: ALL candidates are consumed with ambition; ALL seek power; ALL have formidable egos. Nobody who didn’t could survive the ordeal. Furthermore, ALL political events are stage-managed to the maximum extent possible. Even if they appear on “Oprah,” they’re not there to bare their souls.

An American presidential campaign is the ultimate “reality TV” show. It follows that the anchorcreatures and pundits who bring it to your living room use it to advance their own careers, often by substituting made-for-TV plots and themes for the humdrum issues candidates prefer to discuss. Few voters grasp how much the media’s obsession with personality, “character,” and hot-button issues like race and sex, often involves distorting reality to fit a pre-selected theme.

On his Web site, The Daily Howler, Bob Somerby has exhaustively chronicled how fictitous scenarios about Al Gore and George W. Bush dominated the 2000 presidential election. The Beltway press consistently portrayed Gore as a big faker who made up self-aggrandizing tales about himself, while Bush was an “authentic” politician with a common touch. A gushing Bush profile in, yes, The New York Times set the tone early: “Nobody would ever mistake him for Vice President Gore ... His style is an amalgam of East and Southwest, Yale and the oil patch. Call him the Madras Cowboy.”

The “Madras Cowboy” line never took, but the theme sure did. I vividly recall talking with two Democratic friends, both physicians, both a lot smarter than myself, who’d swallowed the anti-Gore storyline whole. Invented the Internet, “Love Story,” the lot. The first claim Gore never made; the second, author Erich Segal made clear, was largely true. He had modeled his novel’s protagonist on Gore, his former student.

Many find it hard to grasp how today’s Beltway press operates, because in their own professional lives, inventing or ignoring dispositive facts ultimately leads to firing, disgrace and revoked licenses. In Washington, it brings fame, fortune and guest spots on “Hardball,” where pundits ponder questions like this one from the excitable host about Sen. Hillary Clinton’s alleged unwillingness to explain her vote authorizing the Iraq war:

“Everybody in America knew we were going to war with Bush. He made it pretty clear from day one we were going to war. How come she still pretends that she didn’t know he was going to war? It’s like she didn’t know anything about Bill and his behavior! How many times is she going to be confused by men?”

See how it works? From WMD straight back to Bill Clinton’s pants. Never mind that when the Senate voted in 2002, Bush swore that war was the LAST thing he wanted. Did Sen. Clinton believe him? I have no way of knowing. Her contemporaneous public statements accepted intelligence reports touting Iraq’s WMD and ties to Al Qaeda, both now known to be false.

But Clinton’s clearly this campaign’s Beltway pinata, a calculating phony like Gore. Recently, for example, a New Hampshire voter asked her why she hadn’t called her Iraq vote a mistake. Reporters for the trend-setting New York Times and Washington Post knew what to do. They paraphrased her answer and guessed at her motives. “Mrs. Clinton,” the Times wrote, “stuck to a set of talking points that she and her advisers hope will ultimately overcome the antiwar anger that is particularly strong among Democrats.”

Here’s the transcript of what Clinton actually said: “I have said, and I will repeat ... that, knowing what I know now, I would never have voted for it. But I also — and, I mean, obviously you have to weigh everything as you make your decision — I have taken responsibility for my vote. The mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress into a war that should not have been waged.”

How much does Clinton’s position differ from those of Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards, depicted as her main rivals? Hardly at all, in practical terms. But you’d never know that if you follow the spin.

http://www.reporter-times.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=39531&format=html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC