You could be next.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4534473 Lost amid the faint criticism Paul Krugman made of Obama's health care plan in his op-ed today (and the requisite denunciation of his mental abilities), is Krugman's main point: his very salient comment of how the media vilify the Clintons. And how Team Obama is glomming on, even leading the nasty smears. Just this weekend, one of our well-respected DU posters charged Hillary of using Nixonian tactics in trying to control the media - just because she expressed her outrage at being accused of "pimping" her daughter. And she went further: she asked MSNBC to look at it's pattern of coverage of her and her family. Nixonian? Hardly. What's being done to the Clintons by the Rethugs and the media? Now that's Nixonian.
Just days ago, Chris Matthews was FORCED to apologize on air for comments he made about Hillary and how she won her Senate seat. How often have we at DU raged at Tweety, and Morning Blow, and Tucker, et al, over their unfairness toward the Clintons - and MOST Democrats??
That's Krugman's warning. What they're doing to Hillary now, they did to Gore, and Kerry. And I know Obama has a lot of people in his thrall right now - including the media - but really: do you think he's going to get a free pass, if he becomes the nominee?
Democrats - we're in this foxhole together. Get off the Hillary villification train now. The "Clinton Rules" could be coming soon - to a candidate near you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.htm... <snip>
What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.
The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a multiyear, multimillion-dollar investigation, which never found any evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons’ part, yet the “scandal” became a symbol of the Clinton administration’s alleged corruption.
During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.
And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do — asked, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network.
I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws.
For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact. For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November. For another, if history is any guide, if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, he will quickly find himself being subjected to Clinton rules. Democrats always do.
<snip>
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
