From the Media Whores Who Gave Us the WMDs and the Iraq War...The Divided Democratic Primary

[McCamy Taylor]

In a dimly lit bar known only to a select cabal of writers who work for a not so secret cause.

Peggy Noonan (crows): Buzzflash! I made Buzzflash! By telling them that their own white women are racists if they don’t denounce Hillary Clinton and back Barack Obama! Did you see it?

George Will (stares into his glass glumly): Do you we have to hear this story again?

Peggy Noonan: When did you ever make Buzzflash in a good way, George darling? Did you see what they wrote? They even came up with their own list of white women to throw under the bus. “Dianne Feinstein? Barbara Boxer? Kim Gandy? Ellen R. Malcolm? Elizabeth Edwards? Gloria Steinem? Mary Landrieu?” Where is the percentage in Mary f-ing Landrieu nailing Hillary to a cross so that she can jump aboard the Mr. Clings to Guns and Religion Gay Pride Parade? (claps her hands together in delight) No one can do divide and conquer like a woman!

David Broder (sits down at the table next to them. Orders a drink): Some of us prefer subtlety. Did you see my latest in the Washington Post? “I certainly hope that Obama's path is not marked by the violence, riots and other calamities that undid the Democrats in 1968.”

Peggy Noonan (chokes on her drink): Says Bush’s water ca---

David Broder (turns an ugly shade of purple): DON’T SAY IT!

Peggy Noonan (triumphantly): carrier! (throws her olive at him)

Bob Novak (moves over from the bar): Ladies, ladies! We are allies! You saw my work today, I hope.

George Will (groans and buries his head in his arms on the table)

David Broder: You mean “Michelle Vetoes Hillary”? Who the hell is going to believe that anyone in the Obama camp told you that?

Bob Novak (grins broadly) No one! That’s the beauty of the story. And by the way, you got the name of this particular maneuver wrong. It isn’t “Michelle Vetoes Hillary.” Everyone knows that. This little jewel is called “Obama doesn’t listen to Novak…Except when he does.”

George Will: Someone shoot me!

Bob Novak (pats Will on the back) See, my thesaurus toting friend already figured it out. The real story doesn’t happen until Obama angrily denounces my story as false and says ----I’m quoting Politico on this--- "My wife does not talk to Bob Novak on a regular basis." Then the members of the press recall that back in November in Iowa, Barack Obama considered me such a reliable source that he publicly called Hillary Clinton a cheater and a scoundrel based upon a story that I wrote based upon evidence which I claimed to have received from a source within her campaign. “Obama, whose campaign jumped on Robert Novak's suggestion earlier this year of Clinton dirty tricks”---that’s Ben Smith again. See? I was able to remind voters that Obama believes me when he feels like it—when he wants to stick the knife into Hillary—without having to mention it myself.

Peggy Noonan: Sweet!

Bob Novak: (beams) What do you expect from the man who gave the 1972 campaign “Abortions, Acid and Amnesty”?

George Will (slams his hand on the table) I have a fucking Pulitzer Prize!

David Broder: So do I!

Bob Novak: Oh, they give those for RNC propaganda writing?

George Will (lurches to his feet) I’m gonna kill him!

Peggy Noonan and David Broder attempt to wrestle George Will away from Bob Novak

David Broder: You can’t. Not until after November.

They all sit down.

Tim Russert (enters the bar)

Peggy Noonan, David Broder (stand up. Noonan nudges George Will) Look, George. It’s Tim Russert.

George Will (groans but stands up)

David Broder (waves to Russert who waves back) Great interview with Christopher Hitchens!

Peggy Noonan (gives a thumbs up) Way to Hillary Bash!

George Will: What she said. (mutters) “writing and thinking and talking with intelligence, my ass”.

Chris Matthews (peers over Russerts’ shoulder) Don’t I get a round of applause?
“Methinks paleface speaks with forked tongue” was a classic. It really got the racial bonfires going after New Hampshire.

Peggy Noonan (rolls her eyes): You have no subtlety, Chris. Calling Hillary a witch and a SIDS murderer. Did you really think that they wouldn’t call you out? This isn’t a game. You’re supposed to act like you give a damn and you are offering helpful advice.

Chris Matthews (laughs). As if anyone would believe that you or David or George or Bob wants to help the Democrats.

George Will: You would be surprised at what people can delude themselves into believing.

[grantcart]

1. entertaining and very readable

[murielm99]

2. K&R

:kick:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

3. Uh you left Hillary out of your subject line - she voted for the Iraq war

she could have stood up to the media whores but she didn't.

[Jakes Progress]

4. You just don't get it, do you?

Try to catch up.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

7. I've just been here 4 years, excuse me for pointing out one other War Monger

that should have been listed in the OP.

[Jakes Progress]

14. So longevity equals mastery?

Then I guess you'll be hoping that Hillary beats Obama. She has been there longer. That was the point of your post wasn't it?

[Jakes Progress]

5. Beautiful,

but too subtle for some. I know it's a brick sledgehammer, but it's still too subtle for some here.

[virtualobserver]

6. If I could write as well as you, I wouldn't be so bitter

[miktor von doom]

8. for fucks sake, stop it

I never really believed that I could make a difference here.
You all seemed like lunatics pre-06. Yes, I am a liberal, but
I don't engage in hero worship, because they are all(even
Obama) politicians.

This OP is silly. All of those douchelords thrive on
controversy.

The media fails us. DUH. 

[annabanana]

11. your FIRST post and you call US lunatics?

enjoy your stay.

[skepticscott]

9. You just don't give up, do you?

You're flinging anything and everything at the wall, hoping desperately that something sticks. This time it's "Oooohhhhh..those evil conservative pundits are trying to divide us, so let's do just what they don't want...put Hillary on the ticket." Nice try, but regardless of the blatherings of right-wing blowhards, there is absolutely nothing to prevent Clinton supporters from uniting behind any ticket in November , even one that doesn't include their favorite. If there is a split in the Dems this fall, it will be because too many of them took their votes and went home because they didn't get their way. George Will, Peggy Noonan and the rest of that ilk can't prevent you from voting Democratic, so just do it and stop pretending that anyone else will be to blame if you don't because a high enough price hasn't been paid for your vote.

Gotta hand it to you...it's a heck of a propaganda campaign..but it makes me wonder what you're going to do for fun after the convention is over if Hillary's not on the ticket. I get the feeling that your head would explode if you actually had to make a sincere argument in support of Barack Obama as Democratic nominee for president

[Jakes Progress]

16. Sometimes you get told the truth

and you don't want to realize it because the lie is on your side. She didn't dis Obama. She has been saying forever that the media has started in on Obama the same way they did Clinton. But so many of the Barack supporters are supporting him not because of anything about him, but because they just hate Hillary. So they don't want to believe that the media can manipulate them; they want to think that we got left with Barack and Hillary just because. They don't understand that much of the middle road support for Obama is about to be taken down the same way Hillary was taken down. To believe that, they would have to acknowledge that they were manipulated into their hatred. If you don't believe they did it to Hillary, you won't be ready for what they are going to do to Barack. Your rant is proof of her premise.

[satireV]

27. Pardon me for interrupting Jake

But I just wanted to say I haven't seem more cogent or succinct analysis is a long time. Though you appeared recently, the content of your posts pierce the heart of the cognitive dissonance coming from some of the more venal posters here.

Your point about changing reality in order that their beliefs stay intact is on point.

[LisaM]

31. I second that.

I have seen first hand people I know who hate Hillary for no real reason - who'll say, "well, I don't like the things she's said" - and then not be able to quote anything - or, most frustrating to me, when I point out manipulation done ON BEHALF OF OBAMA, they won't see it.

I have gone on record here (I think - I suppose NewHampshireDem will pop in and find some time I said something slightly different from how I remember or got caught up in the heat of an argument and tell everyone snidely that "google is your friend") as saying that I really don't care about the campaigns. I care about who I think will be a better president (along with health care and education). Supposedly Gore ran a godawful campaign and Bush ran a great one, but I never fell for Bush because of it (relax, I'm not comparing Obama to Bush - I'm comparing their campaigns).

[skepticscott]

30. Proof of her premise??

Seems like you've been drinking a little too much of her Kool-Aid too. Her premise, if you've been paying attention, is that Obama is certain (or at least extremely likely) to lose against McCain unless Hillary Clinton is added as VP to form a "unity" ticket, a notion which is both self-serving and false. My post (call it a rant, if you need to feel superior) doesn't go an inch towards proving that. For some reason you chose not to respond with an argument of your own, but instead decided to cook up a psychological profile on me. Here's a tip on that-don't give up your day job.

Since you seemed to get just about everything wrong, I'll help you:

1. I don't hate Clinton or adore Obama, so your contention that I've been manipulated into either falls flat. I see potentially serious flaws with both of them, both as candidates and as president.

2. Nevertheless, I will vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is in November.

3. I have no illusions that the Republicans or the press will play nice, be objective, or take it easy on whoever the Democrats put out there.

4. I don't delude myself that this election is about me, my feelings or my favorite.


Hillary Clinton herself could put the lie to the OP's premise, if she would simply say to her supporters on the day after the convention "If you support what I stand for, and if you oppose what George Bush stands for, support Barack Obama." Will she?

[Jakes Progress]

33. What OP are you reading?

Nowhere in the OP does she mention Hillary as VP. Your reply (or rant if you want to consider me superior) proves you did not read the post but just applied the same old same old. "Clinton is bad. She's a Republican. She's mean" blah blah blah. Just the talking points the the media whores have put into your mind. So your post, despite your current protestation, does exactly prove the OP's point. (Maybe my day job is providing psychological profiles.)

And though I have been known to be wrong, (I think it was in 1985) I don't think your enumerated list has anything to do with that.

1. I can only judge by your words as to whether you hate Clinton. They indicate just that. And your parroting of the GOP provided media talking points that do not address the OP are quite powerful proof that you have been indoctrinated. So much for flatness.

2. Me, too.

3. Me either.

4. Huh?

I'm quite sure that Hillary will tell her voters to vote for Barack. How forcefully and how convincingly will yet be determined. Were she to get the nomination, we don't know how vigorously Barack would support her if he had the chance. Neither of them is above the manipulation.

[skepticscott]

35. As I said

you need to be paying attention. This OP has been stumping in numerous posts to add Clinton to the ticket as VP ever since it became obvious that she wasn't going to get enough delegates to be the nominee herself. This particular post is just another (same old same old) attempt to sell that same point by saying "Look, the conservative pundits are trying to divide us, so let's thwart them by putting Obama and Clinton together on the same ticket." It's good propaganda, but questionable political strategy and, as I said, extremely self-serving coming from this poster.

As far as my "hatred" of Clinton...quotes please? Same with the GOP talking points...your saying it doesn't make it so. In any case, just because a conservative says something doesn't mean it can't be true or logical. And if you truly don't understand #4 on my list as it pertains to this election, then you're even more clueless than I thought.

And as far as Clinton telling her supporters to vote for Obama...you know this how? Are you "quite sure" because she's already said she will, or are you just presuming? Do you know it, or just believe it...or don't you make that simple distinction? And do you think that Clinton and her supporters would be pushing for a "unity" ticket if SHE were the clear front-runner now, or would they be looking for a different VP? Would they still be pushing to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations if Clinton were in Obama's position?

[annabanana]

10. This is very good. (It could go in GD.. We ALL know these douchbags

are intent on getting us fighting, no matter who the nominee is)

[genna]

12. Clever. Insightful. Missing a couple things --- these divisions work because they are there

Bob Novak (pats Will on the back) See, my thesaurus toting friend already figured it out. The real story doesn’t happen until Obama angrily denounces my story as false and says ----I’m quoting Politico on this--- "My wife does not talk to Bob Novak on a regular basis." Then the members of the press recall that back in November in Iowa, Barack Obama considered me such a reliable source that he publicly called Hillary Clinton a cheater and a scoundrel based upon a story that I wrote based upon evidence which I claimed to have received from a source within her campaign. “Obama, whose campaign jumped on Robert Novak's suggestion earlier this year of Clinton dirty tricks”---that’s Ben Smith again. See? I was able to remind voters that Obama believes me when he feels like it—when he wants to stick the knife into Hillary—without having to mention it myself.

The idea which underlies the piece is that we don't trust each other across the divisions. I am not entirely sure why more African American journalists and politicians haven't spoken out through the noise of the press and talked about the division that separates African Americans and Hillary Clinton or the prizm from which African Americans view the Jeremiah Wright story.

This is from Reliable sources, but if you are sitting on the other side you hear things with emphasis that another person doesn't.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/11/rs.01.html

KURTZ: Joining us now to talk about the controversy and other interviews with the candidates and their family members, Clarence Page, columnist for "The Chicago Tribune," and Amanda Carpenter, national political reporter for townhall.com.

Clarence Page, was this a terrible racial remark for Hillary Clinton to make about white voters?

CLARENCE PAGE, "THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE": Well, it was not good political etiquette. I can't remember when I have ever heard a candidate speak so candidly. It's normally your operatives, your surrogates, your consultants who talk like that, or us, the pundits.

(CROSSTALK)

KURTZ: But that's not to say that -- but that's the point. It's not to say that it's not true. In fact, she is quoting an Associated Press article.

PAGE: Truth is only part of the game here, Howard. We're talking about politics, after all.

And we're talking about a candidate who up front says, well, my opponent is weak with white voters. So I'm going to go out and get them.

You know, race is still too sensitive a topic in this country for you to just blindly say that as if we're talking about, say, Catholic voters, say, during the 1960 campaign with JFK.

KURTZ: With JFK. PAGE: This is a situation where now it sounds to black voters out there like she's kicking all of us under the bus, you know, after years of such heavy support.

KURTZ: "Saturday Night Live" really turned on Hillary Clinton last night. Amy Poehler did her impersonation and had her look into the camera and say, "My supporters are racists. You should vote for me because they won't vote for Barack Obama in the fall."

But does the press assume that it's OK, even automatic, for 90 percent of blacks to support a black candidate, but if two-thirds of whites support the white candidate, some of them must be racist?

AMANDA CARPENTER, NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER, TOWNHALL.COM: Well, I mean, I don't think Hillary Clinton is wrong for sort of broaching this topic. I think she certainly could have talked about it more politely. But I think she knows exactly what she is doing.

All she has to do is look at the 2004 exit polling in the general election. Seventy-seven percent of those voting were white, and 58 percent of them did not have a college education. And that is her demographic. So, I think for her broaching this topic is OK, but maybe through a surrogate it would have been better or more...

KURTZ: So you seem to be saying it's OK for her to talk about this in code. She talks about working class or blue collar...

PAGE: Hard-working.

KURTZ: Yes. OK. People hear white. But if she actually says the phrase "white," I would think, well, maybe she just slipped, except she's so careful in her language. Then it is somehow an offense, it is -- it makes her look like she is pandering?

CARPENTER: I don't know if it's so much as pandering as that it's we're just trying to get used to how to talk about these things in ways that isn't divisive. Maybe using code words is a better way to do it. I'm not sure. But when she says "white" over and over again, it seems like she is doing it to draw divides. Even though I think her thought process is broaching this topic, it's correct to do.

KURTZ: All right. Let me move on to some other interviews that took place this week. It was a big TV week for the candidates and their families.

The media even if it is the best thought police in creation could not create the intention or the fear in anyone's heart AND that is the point.

*The bold or italic emphasis added is mine.

[McCamy Taylor]

20. The press DOES create the fear. Who in the US was scared of Sadaam before the WH and MSM toadies

did their 24-7 "Aw lordie, Mizz Scarlet, I dun know if that man's got a nuke ready to take out DC in thirty minutes?" routine.

The press has been trying to make the public fear ambitious, corrupt, murderous, white hood wearing Hillary for months. I don't but it, because I know that the press is a big fat liar And poor folks don't buy it, for pretty much the same reason. The press never says one true word about the wretched step-children of America.

[NashVegas]

13. Rich

What a wonderful piece to illustrate how things have turned upside down.

[kentuck]

15. If they think the Democrats are divided?

Wait until the Republicans get to their Convention!! :-)

[Jakes Progress]

17. My theory is that the GOP doesn't mind McCain

because they don't plan on him finishing his first term. They will get their choice in for VP.

They also don't mind losing with McCain. It will frighten all the repubs back in line. They will gum up everything that the Dem president tries to do. Then, given the brilliance of an electorate that put the Chimp in office twice, they will take back the WH in the next election. We are manipulated and used. Even some of the brighter lights here on DU, where the awareness is higher than general, don't believe in a VRC, vast right-wing conspiracy. They just want to blame our own.

[reflection]

18. Good stuff. n/t

[ooglymoogly]

19. KR...Yes you clearly have your eye on the real enemy....

Yes I too was in the bar reconnoitering the enemy and taking notes for the coming revolution. I seem to remember a Wolf there howling in the rafters and cheering them on?

[McCamy Taylor]

21. Yeah! We need lots of folks watching the watchmen!

Watchmen movie comes out 3-09. Hope it doesn't suck!

http://watchmenmovie.warnerbros.com/

[AtomicKitten]

22. In spite of your efforts to blame it on the MSM, the Clintons are wholly responsible for the divide.

[McCamy Taylor]

23. The Roman Catholic Church blamed the Jews for Jesus---but Romans killed him.

Those in power always get to write the official history.

[AtomicKitten]

24. there you go ... disseminating the spin --- problem is we've been paying attention

Hillary's camp started with pushing the Muslim smear email assault early on and you began your dissemination by blaming that on the MSM. Every dirty trick the Clintons have played since then you've been willing to spin and blame on the MSM.

You underestimate people here by continuing to try to peddle that bait and switch.

re: Hillary's Muslim email smear:
http://politicalnighttrain.wordpress.com/2007/12/05/hillary-clintons-obama-muslim-smear-email-full-text/
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/12/hillary_campaign_acknowledges_that_hillary_backer_passed_along_obama_madrassa_email.php
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/12/third_clinton_v.html

[ooglymoogly]

26. you need to read your biblical "history" a little closer

but as far as history in the real world goes, there is no mention of Jesus of Nazareth at all except for a few obscure words from a philosopher, writer and historian; One of the Pliny's I think it was.

[McCamy Taylor]

28. I "read" my Roman Catholic bigots like Mel Gibson. He speaks the dogma.

The Romans were the imperialists who occupied Palestine. They use divide and conquer tactics. If someone got executed on their watch by being nailed to a cross (the traditional Roman way to kill noncitizens) it was because Romans wanted it that way. When the elite in Rome decided that they could preserve their empire by becoming a cult rather than a military force, they decided that it would be prudent to blame someone else for murdering their savior, so they started that fine old European tradition of pinning their crimes on Jewish people.

Clinton is a lot like the scapegoated Jew of old Europe. No matter what the problem, they could always hold a pogrom and kill some Jews and make people feel better. War? Jewish people started them all. People living in poverty? It was the fault of Jewish people. Not enough food? Blame the Jews.

Blame Clinton!

[ooglymoogly]

25. Well you have it partially right

However she is none but an ambitious marionette; Spinning in the winds of the movers and shakers; Fluting the conflicting larks of division for the furtherance of the status quo; Redounding always to the pigs...umm pugs.

[McCamy Taylor]

29. You must read a lot of George Will. Mind if I translate?

Hillary is a bitch who doesn't know her place.

She wants to play with the big boys.

She shits on her own party so she can suck up to the corporate masters and Republicans (who have been sooo good to her--implied point mine. I am allowed to do this under the Roland Barthe rules since the reader supplies the meaning).


When you take away George Will's thesaurus and translate his coded propaganda into everyday speech, the ridiculousness of his message becomes crystal clear. This is one reason why a man who can write very well when he chooses to do so writes crap when he is forced to churn out RNC oppo. The other reason? Often he is assigned the thankless task of writing the Republican talking points for the masses. So, he makes his columns painful to read. That way only a dedicated GOP Starship Trooper will wade through the adjectives to get to the meat.

George Will style oppo is different from other people's oppo. For example, when California was getting angry over the Enron price gouging of the state, which the Bush administration had facilitated, Will wrote a series of columns designed to make California into the bastard child of the union. He characterized it as a nest of communists and homosexuals (through innuendo, of course). Democrats were not supposed to notice what he was doing. However, the effect on Republicans would be to create a Screw them, they're just faggots and commies. Let them pay more for electricity mentality.

[samsingh]

32. good decription of the msm

[McCamy Taylor]

34. Cliff Notes: The MSM and RW feel free to malign Clinton and Obama by claiming to offer "advice" or

help to one candidate or the other. Never mind that few are actually linked at the hip to one candidate like KO. Most flit back and forth like Chris Matthews, smearing one then the other, touting their nonpartisan status by asserting that since this is just the primary, they are merely helping out one nominee or the other, so that means they are rooting for one Democrat one when they trash talk the other. Never mind that their preference among the two Democrats sometimes changes on an hourly basis depending upon which story they have been told to push.

The effect of all this MSM and RW "assistance" of the two Democrats combined with all the Freepers who pose online as supporters of the two candidates who go out of their way to post wildly offensive divisive comments about both Clinton and Obama is that the public is getting mad at each candidate. In part, it believes the smears that are printed. And in part, it believes that the smears arise from the other campaign. So, the more the public hears about Sniper-gate, the more it become convinced that Obama is behind the Snipergate story. The more it hears about Wright, the more it thinks that Clinton is behind that story.

The net result favors the Republicans.

Calls for the woman to quit because the woman has 100 less delegates are bullshit. The Super Delegates are a bunch of pansies who will not make up their minds. It is not Clinton's job to make up their minds for them. If the Super Delegates, some of whom also can not make up their mind to end the war or impeach Bush are too wimpy to just end this (they have the power to do that at any moment) then Clinton and Obama have to do it together.

At this point, with the dirty campaign tricks like the "Race Memo" that the MSM has deliberately decided to leave unexplored until the General Election (and we all know why the MSM leaves a stone unturned when it is a Democratic stone. It is because they figure they can get more mileage out of it later) the best way to put an end to the MSM and RW Democrat bashing fest is for Obama and Clinton to work out a joint ticket. All dirty tricks, oppo and bad blood between the two camps become water under the bridge if they form a ticket. Obama proves that he can create unity with anyone.

With them working together, any oppo against either Obama or Hillary from the MSM or RW suddenly becomes bias for McCain. The Dems can call them out on it. Bush is very unpopular. Bias for McCain is bias for Bush.

It is not enough for Hillary just to withdraw. The press will continue to bash her, pretending that they are doing it to "advise" Obama not to select her as his VP. The continued Clinton bashing will continue to inflame and divide the party. It will reduce the effectiveness of the best VP nominee the party has to offer. He needs to select her as the VP now to make Clinton bashing unacceptable. That way anyone in the press who engages in it can be called out as an RNC operative.

If Obama pushes for Clinton to withdraw and does not offer her the VP, that will be a sign that he wants the press to bash Clinton, regardless of what it does to Party unity or its hopes for the GE, because he is hoping to diminish her usefulness as a VP. Only a petty, arrogant candidate would want to see a valuable VP candidate diminished because he did not like her personally or felt threatened by her husband. JFK was not afraid of LBJ.