WP,pg1: Bill Clinton fixated on Democrats and the "new media"

[DeepModem Mom]

New Media A Weapon in New World Of Politics
By John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 6, 2006; Page A01

....Clinton -- who regards Rove with a mixture of admiration and disdain as the most effective modern practitioner of polarizing politics -- said in an interview that he has become fixated on the problem of how Democrats can learn to fight more effectively against the kind of attack President Bush's top political aide leveled (when he said liberals want to give terrorists understanding and therapy). Associates of the former president said he thinks that Democrats Al Gore in 2000 and Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) in 2004 lost the presidency because they could not effectively respond to a modern media culture that places new emphasis on politicians' personalities and provides new incentives for personal attack.

While the Foley and Allen episodes burned Republicans, Clinton said in an interview earlier this year that he thinks the proliferation of media outlets, as well as the breakdown of old restraints in both media and politics, on balance has favored Republicans. Without mentioning Gore or Kerry by name, he complained that many Democrats have allowed themselves to become unnerved and even paralyzed in response.

"All of this is a head game, you know....All great contests are head games," Clinton said. "Our candidates have to get to a point where they don't allow other people to define them as either people or as political leaders. Our people have got to be more psychologically prepared for it, and there has to be more distance between them and these withering attacks."... Clinton, in an earlier interview, said his party should understand that the ideological and financial incentives among politicians and media organizations mean that every election cycle will feature such episodes -- and it should plan accordingly.

But he said Democrats of his generation tend to be naive about new media realities. There is an expectation among Democrats that establishment old media organizations are de facto allies -- and will rebut political accusations and serve as referees on new-media excesses...."I think a part of it is we grew up in the '60s and the press led us against the war and the press led us on civil rights and the press led us on Watergate," Clinton said. "Those of us of a certain age grew up with this almost unrealistic set of expectations."...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/05/AR2006100501811.html?nav=hcmodule

[Pirate Smile]

1. I'd love to see Bill use his political acumen to help the Democratic

Party as a whole.

We know he is a great tactician and can read the political mood of the country brilliantly. The problem was the triangulation method meant he was running against his Party as well as the Republicans at the same time. He was the sensible one in the middle.

Now, of course, many (if not most) of us are worried he is only interested in helping Hillary and not the Party as a whole.

We don't want any more triangulation crap using the Democratic Party as part of your foil, Bill.

Use your gift for the good of the entire Democratic Party and the whole Country. Please!

If Hillary became Majority Leader, I think Bill and Hil would be doing what I wrote above and I think that would be ideal.

We'll see.

[Tellurian]

5. Well, you're right, thats a whole lotta crapola!

You can't be serious trying to project your Triangulation Theory on people. How blind can you be?

Up until a week a two ago, the Demos were silently, few not so, twirling and swirling defending Bush's honor, as
president of this country against defamatory remarks made by President Chavez. Hillary and Pelosi included.

The time line I'm referring to of course was the pre Wallace interview. And of course, before the bombshell
delivered in Woodward's new book "State of Denial"... exploding revelations equivalent to the sacking of Rome.

You go on in your post, begging Clinton, to please, please, use his expertise for the good of the Party? Seems to me you have selective long term memory loss. Clinton never deserted the Democratic Party...THE PARTY DESERTED HIM!

How many Demos spoke out against Clinton during his threat of Impeachment? The two that come to mind off the top of my head are LIEberman and Gephardt.. Where are they now? One is gone and the other is soon to be...

Anyway...

Getting back to your post (drivel) accompanied by your accosting feigned pleas :

"Bill if you're a good boy and help us out here, we might...I said, might...back Hillary for Majority Leader."

What in the world does this mean? Are you saying because Hillary is a women she's unqualified for consideration
as a Presidential nominee from her Party?

[blm]

21. Clinton defended Bush against Chavez' remarks, too. And NO Dem received

greater coverage for his support of Bush and his policies from 2001 thru 2005 than Bill Clinton did, especially on Iraq. Which added another degree of difficulty for those Democrats who were steadily countering Bush at 70% approval rating - 60% approval rating - 50% approval rating. They weren't waiting for a steady under 40% to speak up. And none of them waited FIVE YEARS and at least 8 books later to defend themselves from blame for 9-11.

Did Clinton back up Kerry over Bush on Tora Bora? Nope

Did Clinton go around the MSM agreeing with Bush's strategy on WOT and Iraq for 4 years? Yep

Did Clinton back up Kerry's call for Rumsfeld to go in 2003 and 2004 - even after Abu Ghraib? Nope

[blm]

18. That brilliant political mind advised ENDORSING antigay state amendments

in 2004.

[OzarkDem]

73. Triangulation is "old school"

There are very few political scenarios in which those tactics work, they're very limited in scope. And they don't work for the long term, either. As you point out, they eventually end up hurting the party you represent.

[Poiuyt]

2. Clinton should teach a course on how to run a campaign

He seems to understand the Repubs strategy better than anyone else on the Democratic side.

[blm]

61. Then how did he get impeached and then blamed for 9-11 for 5 years?

Here's a couple GREAT campaign ideas -

Demand that the LAST Dem president stop appearing publically speaking in support for current GOP president's policies that you are attacking.

Demand that LAST Dem president deal with the false charges that have been made against him and that are effecting the media storylines that are beng used against ALL Dem candidates.

[Tatiana]

3. Say what you want about him, but he's a brilliant man.

One thing I've noticed, which I think Bill alludes to, is that many of the current crop of Dem politicians lack the "street fighter" mentality. They continue to operate under the naive belief that the media and their opponents with be truthful and honest. They are trying to "duel" with people who are waiting until they are turned to stap them in the back. You can't reason or debate with folks like that. You've got to shut them up and shut 'em down, while filling the silence with your own message. Bill gets this. Bill practices this. It would be nice if he could school some of our politicians on how to brawl like a pro while keeping yourself politically above the fray.

Bill doesn't sit around pondering what other folks think of him. He knows in his mind, based on his record and accomplishments what folks *should* think of him. Then he makes sure that he frames his record and accomplishments in a way that people *do* think that way of him. Our candidates have got to get the framing issue down pat as well.

[karynnj]

7. I think Clinton needs to consider that elections are

different. This is not like a duplicate bridge game where he and John Kerry, for instance, were dealt the same cards and he just played them better. 2004 was far more difficult than 1992.

In addition to the new media- that Clinton is right to speak of, but doesn't really specify how we counter, there were other factors that hampered Kerry in 2004, that would likely have been a problem for any Democrat.

- the Media that didn't cover designated major speeches, much less standard campaigning. If the huge, enthusiastic Kerry rallies at the end of the campaign were covered in the way Clinton's were, some momentum would have built up. Instead you saw reporters blandly say where Kerry appeared and some tight shots of him speaking a line or two. Editing is everything.

If this happens in 2008, how do we distribute our own video - the internet, podcast, Youtube are all more available than they were in 2004.

- the administration that politically raised the terror levels whenever the candidate gained momentum and the media covered the supposed terror threat rather than the candidate's issues.

This may still be a problem - but people are more wary.

- The old media corrects immediately all flubs of the W and plays the very few Kerry errors (it's hard to list 5- in months of speaking for 16 hours a day.) (You do remember the jokes in 2004, where the media pundit would ask Bush to spell "cat" and would give him credit for "kat" as close, then ask Kerry a difficult physics question and complain his answer was two complicated.)

?? If the old media has also developed a RW bias, this is a problem.

- the cable and the old media gives free time even after they know better to an attack group spreading malicious lies. Many of the attacks on Kerry were completely bogus and were aimed at his genuinely good character.

Kerry, himself, has said they should have spent more money to get the truth out - to counter the lies. It sounds like Clinton agrees and sees that the media that both of them and many of us grew up with that acted as a "judge" is gone.

- state officials in at least 2 states willing to run corrupt elections to prevent your win.
Point is this was not a fair fight. In a fair fight, the winner would have been Kerry by a landslide.

Here Boxer, Dodd, Kerry, Clinton and Feingold have put together some legistation they want passed to correct the problems.

We also need better Democratic advocates on TV. Can we clone Olberman? Begala and Carville are prime examples of what we don't need. As 2 of the few media Democrats, they mostly criticized Kerry for not being Clinton. As Kerry, not Clinton was running - this was not useful. Carville, in the Woodward book, is said to have given Mary Matalin information from the Kerry camp (that he was NOT in) on Ohio on election night. Mary, of course, immediately gave it to the Republicans.

Against all this Senator Kerry nearly won - and very likely would have run if there were no voter suppression in Ohio.

Dealing with the new reality is an important issue to bring up because the Democrats have to figure out a way to counter it. Clinton is extremely smart and he is likely have good ideas. It would be good if he worked with Gore and kerry on this. They saw the attacks from the inside and they are both savvy men as well. Gore, for instance, has already worked on creating an alternative media. Kerry has used his email list as a means to communicate and to create support for legislative action. He has also had some very good uses of liberal blogs. (The WP, part of old media itself. may not have even seen these changes.)

No matter who the 2008 candidate is, they will need to figure this out - and they will need ideas and support from all the Democrats to fight this.

[Tellurian]

14. Karynjj...

Are you by any chance a Political Campaign Consultant?

If so, how many campaigns have you been been involved with and did your candidate WIN? :)

How long have you been doing this and can you name names of previous clients?

You really sound like you know what you're talking about. Am I right?

Oh, and are you serious? Did this comment really appear in Bob Woodward's new book,
"In the State of Denial" referring to Carville? Was this the only reference you can
remember about Carville in Woodwards book?

Where you said:

"Begala and Carville are prime examples of what we don't need. As 2 of the few media Democrats, they mostly criticized Kerry for not being Clinton. As Kerry, not Clinton was running - this was not useful. Carville, in the Woodward book, is said to have given Mary Matalin information from the Kerry camp (that he was NOT in) on Ohio on election night. Mary, of course, immediately gave it to the Republicans."

imo..this is a very interesting development..

[karynnj]

30. Thanks for the compliment, but I'm a NJ woman

who has been a stay home mom since 1998, when everyone in the company I worked for got an excellent offer. As my oldest was entering her teen years, retirement with medical benefits was an offer to good to reject. I had worked in various statistical consulting groups in a very large company for 24 years. The only political work - arguing on this site and volunteering to phone bank and canvass in my hopelessly Republican county. I was always interested in politics, since I was one of the few 12, 13 year olds who liked to watch JFK on tv far more than the entertainment shows.

The Woodward comment was from a Washington Post article, read here on DU:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/01/AR2006100100687.html

"The book also reminds us what a small town this is. On election night 2004, GOP communications guru Mary Matalin was with Bush and Vice President Cheney and talking with her husband, Democratic strategist James Carville , who was close to -- but not in -- John Kerry 's campaign.

Kerry, Carville told her, was going to challenge 250,000 provisional ballots in Ohio, which could change the result there or tie things up for a long time. Matalin promptly told Cheney, and they met with Bush. The Kerry camp made the announcement shortly thereafter."

The odd thing about this is that it is NOT included as an absolutely sensational piece of information , but as an inside the beltway everybody knows everybody comment - which to me is very parochial. My first thought, as Carville was mostly negative on Kerry is what else was passed and that Kerry made an excellent decision in not hiring him or giving Begala a major role.

[Tellurian]

69. The Pugs like Mary because she has a toxic personality..

Any good that may exist, her presence alone can pollute the air
within a 10ft circumference. I watched them when they did the
short lived "K Street" series..She is an absolute bore with
no visible existing nurturing value. Her best talent is her
incessant droning debating skills.. She's out of the limelight
now because the Repugs are losing power quicker than a hot air
balloon in a needle factory...She is so last week!

[karynnj]

74. Wow

I agree - reading this I unfortunately can hear her nasal monotonic droning voice. I really pity their kids. She does seem toxic and Carville is not all that warm either. She however could play the wicked witch without wearing a costume or makeup.

[Tellurian]

76. Yes, and if she tried a little harder..

She could show herself to be a benevolent person
rather than relying on earning a living from negative attacks.

Everyone liked Carville when he ran with Clinton because he
was a colorful character and they played well off of each other.

I think he's lost himself somewhere because of the undue influence
his been under from Matalin's personality. You automatically want
to like Mary because of Carville, they could be so much more if Mary
showed her softer side as feminine, rather than the defensive negative
gladiator putting on a show for the Romans.

Oh, well- to each his own..

[OzarkDem]

81. I agree, the media has changed in many ways

As Clinton pointed out, we can no longer expect them to act as "referees" in elections - presenting both sides fairly.

But denying media coverage to all Dems and Dem pov on issues has become much more pervasive than ever in the past. Its not just that the media allows themselves to be used by the GOP to attack Dem candidates and define their issues for them, they've become an extension of GOP control of all media communications working to suppress dissent and control all news.

That's much more than just refusing to referee, or rigging the game, its helping to shut down the game altogether.

I'm sure Clinton doesn't want to talk about how consolidation of media ownership and outright monopolies in some areas were the result of his trusting policies. I'd certainly feel a lot better if he acknowledged that problem and gave Dems the opening they need to work on media reform if they take back Congress.

Clinton is giving Dem candidates good advice on overcoming these problems, but its not enough. Clinton himself has to acknowledge that low income and powerless voters don't have access to the internet or satellite tv in order to get "balanced" news coverage. Our airwaves were never intended to be subject to the whims of the open market.

[blm]

16. He's lying BRILLIANTLY. He knows MSM didn't cover election fraud remarks

he made a few months ago, so he has room to blame Kerry and Gore to the Mainstream media while telling ALTERNATIVE media a few months ago that he believes Gore won and that he believes RFK's article on election fraud in 2004.

Which means he damn well knows that both Gore and Kerry WON but the DNC's infrastructure never secured the voting process as it was charged to do for FOUR YEARS under Terry McAuliffe.

[Tellurian]

25. Ok...So?

Make your point because I don't know what you're driving at..

Be BOLD spit it out!

What are you trying to say?

[blm]

27. Clinton knows Gore and Kerry both won and election fraud was why they

were unable to take office. Now he is blaming THEM and pointing to a communications deficit as the reason neither WON their elections - as if election fraud never happened.

No mystery - if Terry McAuliffe HAD worked at and secured the voting process for Democrats after the 2000 election fraud tactics were vetted at the hearings, those votes would have put Kerry in office by a near landslide.

[Toots]

88. You are saying Gore lost because of election fraud and Clinton knows that

But I would guess if Clinton knows that to be true so then did John Kerry as he is also a very intelligent man. What did Kerry do to counter this? Clinton is suggesting Democrats awaken to a problem he has ascertained and you want to criticize him for it. Do you disagree with his assessment that the Media can no longer be counted on to weigh an issue fairly? I would actually go even farther and say the courts are becoming the same way. There will be no fair evaluation of the facts in front of impartial judges. IMO Republican Family Values are actually Gambino Family Values. A coup de tat happened in America in 2000 and people are still not aware of it..

[Tellurian]

49. I feel the same way...

I've been in so many Battle Royales, I've had to learn how to Win no matter what.
I'm home for the next week or so...I have a wonderful job, my boss loves me because
I make alot of $$$ for him..and he gives me freedom when I want or need it..

This is a very unusual circumstance for me to spend so much time on du..what makes it
doable is (except for this week not working),I work from home and have access when my work is clear.

[gully]

4. It's fantastic that he is beginning a dialog about this.

eom

[GetTheRightVote]

6. at last someone is creating a dialog for the Dems, weird it is Bill though

there are so many active politicians in office, why not one of them ?

I guess it is Bill, aka=Big Dog, to the rescue ?

:kick:

[Tellurian]

8. It seems prophetically natural..

When you have:

"The Man from Elysian Fields"

"The Man From Snowy River"

Then you have:

"The Man from Hope"..Bill Clinton

(and we sure do need a giant helping of HOPE!)

[blm]

19. Man from Hope was ALLOWED to be viewed by the American public.

Clinton was given NINE HOURS of primetime from ALL the networks to introduce himself to the American people.

Gore was given 6 hours.

Kerry was given 3 hours - and 1of those hours went to Clinton.

[Tellurian]

24. Hmmm...

Relevance?

[blm]

26. You referenced Man From Hope. I gave clearer picture why we got to KNOW

that side of Bill Clinton in a way the public was NOT allowed to know candidates AFTER the corporate takeover of the media.

[blm]

17. Clinton became known during the balanced media days - no Dem has had

that advantage since the corpmedia flexed its muscles in 1997 - and even was able to IMPEACH Clinton over bogus reasons.

Gore was IMPEACHMENTED. Rather was IMPEACHMENTED. Kerry was IMPEACHMENTED. The whole process of attacking the Democratic voice was developed and perfected during the Clinton years, and Clinton's failure to address the lies and the charges throughout the last 10 years gave them undue strength.

Clinton just started to speak out in defense of himself to charges made almost every day since 9-11 - - glad he did, but why wait so long?

[Tellurian]

29. For those of us that have been involved in the goings on..

for almost ten years now, we've all lived through the Impeachment, the run up to the Impeachment when Ken Starr was investigating the Clintons. Whitewater, FosterGate, LewinskyGate, until Ken Starr finally gave up and had BC's censured and his license to practice law suspended for 5 yrs..Starr investigated them up the kazoo and spent millions of Tax Payer dollars distracting the presidency and coming up empty for criminal wrongdoing..

Did you read Bill Clinton's book written in collaboration with Conason and Lyons?

The book entitled "THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT"..was a biographical account of the Vast Right Wing conspiracy
to get rid of Clinton as President because he beat Poppy Bush, and as we are finding out now, ruining Poppy's plans for PNAC? The exact situation we are in now, was scheduled to go down at the reelection of George H.W. Bush. I mean if you don't realize this than you've got alot of catching up to do; because we are going forward not backward in time...Whats done is done!

So, got any ideas how we should proceed from here on in for 08'?

[blm]

32. I read Conason's book. But let's be honest - Clinton had a strong Dem

senate and congress attacking Bush1 for four solid years and throughout the Reagan terms.

Would people have broken trust with Bush1 by 1992 if constant IranContra links, BCCI and Iraqgate weren't in the headlines throughout his 4yr term?

Did Clinton understand that the Dems in the senate and congress had no such powerful platform to work from as they did FOR HIM in 1992 and that whenever he supported Bush and his policies throughout those 4 years he made it even more difficult for their attacks on Bush to be heard?

Of course he did.

[madfloridian]

41. You are right.

For several years our Democrats have been shown just as the GOP wanted them shown.

And yes, Clinton did just start speaking out.

[Tellurian]

52. Yes, mad..you beat me to it..

President Clinton has always prevailed even under constant persecution
by the repubs for 8 yrs, open heart surgery, etc..and a do nothing Congress
while in office.

Timing is everything in life and maybe timing found him when he did the
interview with Chris Wallace..

Just a little note aside...I know we've been treading on Constitutional
issues on and off over the last few months. I just wanted to take a moment
to remember a fallen warrior Charles Ruff, who fought valiantly for BC during
the Impeachment hearings. He was a master of the Constitution
and an abstract thinker of Common Law...indeed a match for Bruce Ackerman.

RIP..Mr. Ruff and know you are missed, thought of and remembered today..

[madfloridian]

54. He signed a bill to deregulate radio, etc...and they tore him up.

And further changes to the bill are being made now, and all Democrats after him are victims.

His appearances now are for his legacy and for his wife's future.

It sort of takes the air away from any others.

He was a victim of his own deregulation, just as all our other Democrats have been.

[Tellurian]

66. Well, then..

we have a parting of the ways..

Sorry you are so emotional, maybe too much so, to see the bigger picture.

It's not about Bill or Hillary- It's about US!!!!!!

We need a presidential candidate that can win!

We need a presidential candidate that can have the full weight of
this country behind her because she is married to a very well
respected past president that isn't afraid to stand up to anyone
that comes within arms length of lying about the Truth.

Our Constitution is stripped as we speak, our Bill Of Rights are in tatters..

There isn't anyone else that is capable of beating the system set up by
The Vast Right Wing..and can get the job done!

And by the way...the innuendo you and friend smacked of earlier on..
which was definitely out of line, now that you brought it up..

FYI, I work in Investment Banking..and yes, I do earn tons of $$$ for my boss!

No need to respond, madfloridian...

[blm]

70. Except RFK's article proves that Kerry was capable of winning but the DNC

and their negligence made the party INFRASTRUCTURE incapable of getting the votes he earned SECURED and COUNTED.

This whole dog and pony show being put on now by some to blame campaigns and communications or the antiwar left on the one hand while acknowledging quietly that the GOPs rigged machines and fully knowing damn well that it was election fraud is A SICK JOKE.

[karynnj]

75. I think there are other candidates as likely or more likely to win than

Hillary. Both Kerry and Gore have been strengthened not weakened since their non-wins. Kerry has by far the most coherent Iraq plan, that more are drifting towards as time by. Kerry's overall view of national security in 2004 was ahead of its time, but now has even people like George Will stating he was right. Gore is a leader on global warming. (On this, Kerry's credentials are far better than Clinton's) (2008 should be an easier general election. Only McCain would seem a problem - and Kerry is the one with an Ace up his sleeve there. McCain's second book has a chapter on their work together on the POW/MIA committee - one person comes out having every quality a President should have especially diplomatic skills and the ability to calm warring factions and the other was McCain.)

The Clintons have been so vague on their ideas on Iraq, that Tom Kean Jr was able to say on This Week that he agrees with Bill Clinton that Menendez's position, cut and run, would be a disaster. Stephanopolis didn't question this and later said to Menendez that Kean agreed with Clinton on Iraq and what was his position. Menendez answered his position.

Another problem is that on many issues, such as National security, when trying to see what Hillary's credentials are they boil down to Bill did it. It almost seems a way to skirt the term limits - as Hillary has been pretty quiet on most issues.

But, at any rate this is what the primaries are for. For now 2006 is more important,after the election, in addition to looking more seriously at candidates Democrats need to address the type of ideas you and others have for breaking through the communication barriers.

[Tellurian]

77. Yes, I can only hope they implement our ideas and get the word out..

Breaking the media's communications barrier is the key to the kingdom..
Hopefully, it will be used and publicized for all to have unlimited access
to information and refutation of false charges and giving us the same tools
the Repugs have to respond in uniformity to their attacks...

Now that Prez Clinton has broken through, I believe Hillary's message will be on
target. Of course, the Republican scandals are newsworthy and the damage done to
the party is tsunami like in it's implications because the rippling effect has settled
on Hastert's resignation..we'll have to wait and see if Newt steps up to replace him..

[karynnj]

89. Tellurian - this actually looks like a completely different

way to ignite a disscussion on how Bush has malchiously mismananged the Iraq war. There are several activist groups involved on this as well as John Kerry. Between forwarding Kerry's email to friends, the invite software for the one my husband and I signed up for allowed you to put friends and neighbors email in to get invitations. This is for next Saturday, so the timing could be really good. The aspect of Iraq this addresses is that Halliburtin et al are hurting the soldiers in addition to ripping off the country. It could replace the likely stale by than Foley scandal that has hurt their "Values" image, with an even more unethical, cynical scandal. (and it is pretty hard to beat a Congressman hitting on pages)

Link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2866522

[NVMojo]

9. He is 100% correct in what he has stated here ...

I've said it for 5 years, we need our own Karl Rove

[blm]

20. We NEED the Fairness Doctrine and PAPER BALLOTS. But Bill doesn't want

to address that.

He claims Gore and Kerry lost to bad vote counts in front of ALTERNATIVE press, but tells MSM that Gore and Kerry lost because they couldn't communicate - completely letting Terry McAuliffe off the hook for his four years of failing to secure the voting process.

[truthisfreedom]

10. praise be.

one true voice in the wilderness.

[sendero]

11. I agree with President Clinton

... but to be honest it's all pretty obvious and has been for years.

The Democrats better learn to play the new game or we are toast. Even now, after Clinton led the way with Chris Idiot, I don't hear that our campaigners have learned much.

[karynnj]

13. I take Clinton's comments more as they need to

devise ways to counter the new media. What he is acknowledging is that the media enviromental has radically changed from what we knew in the past. I think it is great that Clinton is bringing up this issue because, as you said countering it is essential to winning.

I'm not sure the answer is to have our own "Rove" is the answer. Rove had the infastructure to work with. I don't know when RW talk radio started - I know it was there before Clinton was elected, bacause it was a story that Limbaugh and others were enranged when Clinton won. I also remember an excellent Clinton speech after the Oklahoma bombing where he blasted hate radio, but the number of these ranters have metastesized.

Another difference is that they have gained acceptability. In the early 90s, I think they were on a par with the tabloids. Now, they have taken over many slots on cable tv. How did we get to a point that people like G Gordon Liddy and Oliver North, who were convicted of major crimes, are on tv or radio in a position to cast judgement on people who always obeyed the law? Cable TV has essentially become talk radio. Even the networks have moved to compete with these outlets away from thoughtful, serious analysis to flashy stories. Bill Clinton is entirely right that this is not the media of his young adulthood.

A Democratic "Rove" doesn't have the talk radio and cable news. There is the blogosphere - that we know has both a left and a right. The problem is that the right has their blogosphere with the hideous Drudge to pull together all the filth in one place, that bubbles up to talk radio, to cable Tv - where we seem to be able to trust only Olberman. They then have a group of right wing publishers that produce hateful books. From all these sources, by April 2008, when our candidate and theirs are known, people will face one thing after another that re-inforces the idea that the likey Democratic, no matter who she or he is, is among the most evil people on earth while the Republican one nearly walks on water.

Clinton's definition of the problem is what many of us have said. Until 2000, having truth on your side enough to get respected journalist - including TV anchorman to blast people pushing lies AND to have that message swamp the lies. It's not clear how you regain some sort of respect for accuracy or truth. I'm not sure that Clinton has the answer yet or that John Kerry who since 2004 has also wrestled with how to deal with this does.

The answer is NOT as simple as going on Fox News and giving them Hell. Clinton, as an ex-President, has the leverage to do this. A candidate doing the same thing will be labelled as unstable, angry, or out of control. From the article, I don't think Clinton does either.

[Tellurian]

22. Yes, from the first line in your response,I agree with you..

here:

"devise ways to counter the new media. What he is acknowledging is that the media enviromental has radically changed from what we knew in the past. I think it is great that Clinton is bringing up this issue because, as you said countering it is essential to winning."

Well, imo..:) We need something the equivalent of : "RADIO FREE EUROPE"..Which I believe could easily be done through
for instance, Sirius Radio which will be equipped with a FREE fax on demand of the daily radio broadcast, where we can virtually create our own newspapers without the cost of buying a newspaper. And have the same service available on a few different Democratic websites we can freely download at will.

This is so ironic to me that this is happening. I wrote an entire screenplay in (99'/00') where the unlikely candidate
"WOODY" (I had Woody Harrelson in mind when I wrote it) was the first electronically drafted candidate in a 'Voting on the Internet election.' I used my own home town as the backdrop for the movie..The Farrelly brothers were my neighbors, so the inroad was there if they thought it was good enough to do something with. I even submitted a partial first draft to the Screenwriters Guild. The timing just wasn't right to do anything with the script. We had just gone through a lengthy trial
BvG everyone was burnt out from the cliffhanger...we all needed a rest...

The thing of it is..I think many of the ideas I wrote about some years ago may still apply...because the theoretical had to be believable on screen even though it was a spoof. The key reality was that Woody's presidential bid was a bit under capitalized seeing he only had $300 in the bank at the time he made the commitment to run...(enough of this already..:)

Seeing we need unusual ways to counter the opposition..Sort of a Parallel Universe type concept.I think it can be done. As long as the Democrats agree through thick and thin to stick to the election strategy. Even if it means, left hand on the Bible, raising their right hand and taking the "Staying On The Same Page No Matter What, Oath.

Oh, by the way..in case you're interested..Woody WON the election..:)

[karynnj]

28. I know I would have gone to see your movie

I also agree with the staying on the same page - in fact as 2004 was so close, I think had every Democratic pundit and politician spent an hour reading all the positions - easilly available on Kerry's web site and choosing those issues they agreed enough with to enthusiasticly support, it could have made a difference.

I like the idea of both the radio and the daily fax. It would also be great if there was a video (on tape or download) that could be a Woody for Dummies. Woody could give simple answers on subjects most likely to ask.

I would actually like this now - I have done some phoning and canvassing for Menendez - this would be great. I do follow politics and I did go to the web site, but there are many things I don't know. (also - a cheat sheet on counters to all of Kean's attacks should be done and available to canvassers.)

[Tellurian]

50. karynnj,

Just read your post..Yes, I'm sure there are many economical ways to beat the giant system..
People are really sick and tired of the political rehash now that they are starting to realize
it's pure one sided propaganda they've been listening to..and most if not all of it is based on
lies propagated by the WH and their spin machine.

Bush's credibility is shot..and so is anyone elses associated with his administration.
Technically, they are sinking in the Atlantic, the old Eisenhower Republicans (my mother) have
long since removed their deck chairs, and are waiting in silence for the end to come..

Although, she has agreed to vote Demo, I think for the first time in her life...

Nevertheless, "IT'S A GOOD THING"

[riona]

12. Glad our Party leadership

may finally wake up. The DU posters have seen the problem for a long, long time.

[Tellurian]

37. Yep, you're absolutely right..flblu2

I think we stand the best chance of winning this time, than we have in a very long time.

That is, IF we get the chance to get our votes counted.

Now see, why haven't the DEMs worked for a language CHANGE TO the Constitution,
stating that "IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION *ALL* VOTES SHOULD/MUST BE COUNTED"?

Actually, it's not too late to do this and might be the perfect opportunity to educate the public
to the radical changes made to the Constitution by the Republican controlled Congress. Theres plenty
to discuss, updating the public to the most recent changes relating to the Due Process and Arrest Amendments.
Specifically the IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII Amendments.. Where Americans do not realize they are already at
risk for camp interment if they are labeled (solely by BUSH) as an lawful or unlawful enemy combatant.

I believe this would be time well spent on this topic alone. Can you imagine the discord when Americans realize
they have been lumped into a category labeled Insurgents, Enemy Combatants, Enemy's of George Bush...
Why, with this new power he could even lock up his own if they refuse to bend to his will.

Imagine the Rockefeller's all locked up in an internment camp simply because they refused to turn over their
shares to Standard OIL Company to Bush, because he needs more money to blow up South America to get Hugo Chavez...

They created this Frankenpresident, so now, how do THEY control him?

(here's a laugh for ya...spellcheck had no alternative spelling for Frankenpresident!)

:toast:

[blm]

15. CLINTON IS LYING - He said he believed election fraud a few months ago

Now he's pointing AWAY from election fraud.

Kerry and Gore BOTH WON, and Kerry won by a WIDE MARGIN.

Why is Clinton blaming them and protecting Terry McAuliffe who failed to spend his four years strengthening the party infrastructure and securing the voting process for Democrats?

[Tellurian]

23. Where does it say that?

Can you post a link or post a credible reference?

[blm]

35. Here - this story was big on Election Forum last July.

The media present were all ALTERNATIVE PRESS, and NO corpmedia reported on this event. If Clinton MEANT what he said, he'd tell the same story to the mainstream media and let it be out there. But he has NEVER repeated his remarks - can't have the public knowing that not only was Kerry electable, but he won with more votes cast for him than any presidential candidate in American history.




Citizen Clinton Speaks Out:
Former President Raises Cain - Almost

By Michael Collins
“Scoop” Independent News
Washington, DC


Co-Published at
www.electionfraudnews.com
July 3, 2006

Former President Clinton spoke to the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies on June 17, 2006. He gave the keynote address which covered a number of topics. He even provided his answer to “the fundamental nature of the 21st century” – “interdependence.”

During the question and answer portion of the speech, an audience member made an inquiry about election fraud. Clinton’s response might have gained front page status or at least editorial page controversy if the United States had a function media. It does not.

Audience member to Clinton: Talking about elections, Robert Kennedy Jr. just wrote an article in Rolling Stone claiming the Bush Administration stole the last election. Do you think it was, and how can we guard against something like that going on in the future?

President Clinton: I must say I read Robert Kennedy’s article in Rolling Stone and I think all of you should if you haven’t. And before I read it, I was convinced that President Bush had won Ohio… I… I …thought it would have been ironic if he had lost the election in the Electoral College and won the popular vote, that is if he went out the same way he came in. But… but I think that… I think that -- two things, I think there is no question that Al Gore would have won Florida if all the votes had been counted and the people who intended to vote for him had their votes counted.

[Tellurian]

38. So, did you do YOUR PART?..

and e-mail this story to all the mainstream media asking them to
verify Clinton's quotes, asking if the story is TRUE?

And when will you be notified of a response to your query?

Or is it still on your tado list?

[blm]

62. HEH - you should check out the election forum from last July - some of us

LED that effort to spread it to msm.

Did you? Did Clinton?

[Tellurian]

31. If you could only know..

Or better if McAuliffe only knew how many times he got a huge virtual spanking from me when his behavior as the DNC chairman
was as useless as tits on a bull. I don't think McAuliffe could believe how incensed many of us were at his supreme failure as Party Chairman to do anything to unify the party infrastructure. I believe there was great Party jealousy. All directed at Clinton's uncanny political ability as a charismatic speaker, fund raiser, and unmatched brilliance in the realm of political strategist.

However, I don't believe it wasn't just McAuliffe. It was many others including but not limited to underground rumblings from Lieberman consistently breaking the will of anyone that aligned themselves with Bill Clinton...and at the time, included Al Gore. If you want to blame anyone for Gore's loss, blame Lieberman. Lieberman LIED every day to GORE scaring the BeJezus out of him until he had him convinced Clinton was poison.. He took his word for it--and refused Clinton's help. And yes, I know just like everyone else Al Gore Won. It was the keeping of the win that became a problem...But thats a whole nother chapter.

I was very vocal voicing my support for Howard Dean as the next pick to Chair the Party. And I'm completely happy Dr. Dean is the Party Chairman.. He is the perfect person for the job. He's outspoken, compassionate and really cares about the importance of his job... I think we have to learn from the past and keep track of Democrats representing treating them like an extended family members. Praise them when they succeed and hold them accountable when they fail.

For now, in my not so humble opinion, for openers, Howard Dean and Bill Clinton are a match made in heaven..

[blm]

34. Except McAuliffe and Clinton are tighter than a pair of French jeans.

So, if McAuliffe was negligent of the party infrastructure that was so weak in too many crucial states, well...who WAS he listening to?

McAuliffe wasn't listening to Gore or Kerry or Dean or anybody else from 2001 - 2005. He didn't listen to rank and file Democrats - no voices reached McAuliffe's ears except Clinton's and Carville's.

[Tellurian]

39. If Carville and Clinton

were the only voices McAuliffe (I hate writing his name) was listening to...
How do you know? Which one are you sleeping with??

You can trust me..I'll never tell...nobody reads these threads anyway..:)

[madfloridian]

40. Oh, my, that was not a very nice thing to say to her.

It was way over a line of being proper.

[blm]

43. Thanks, mf - - but I don't care - - she can ALMOST even be on the right

track, even though she's not on this one.

[madfloridian]

44. It was ugly and should not be at DU.

It irritated me because I know the Clinton stuff is going to be coming on very strong in preparation for Hillary.

[blm]

57. True - what was said is inappropriate.

I'm just a bit thick-skinned though and the barbs at DU don't personally hurt me much.

[madfloridian]

59. Well, I am not that thick skinned, and I don't want to be that way.

It was tasteless.

[Tellurian]

58. OMG.. This is hilarious..

Lighten up fellas it was a joke..

Reread the post.. she said only 2 people were talking to McAuliffe, no one else..haha!
How would she know unless she was that close to one of them to be told..or she is actually
a he..and is either Carville, Matalin, Hillary or Bill...so, I may not be that far off..

[madfloridian]

60. I think perhaps someone else needs to lighten up.

Some things are not funny.

[blm]

42. I've been close enough to powerful men to know manipulation when I see it.

And I know PLENTY of callgirls. Some who have partied with many a DC male.

[Tellurian]

63. Great, I was married to one..

He passed away a few years ago..
and I've never met anyone like him since..

He was brilliant, a man's type of man, and a doer that got things done!

[blm]

68. Did he ever sabotage others while manipulating perception in the process

of getting things done?

Or support a weak GOP president who USED his support as a crutch for his own campaign?

[madfloridian]

33. From Salon....media deregulation started in 1996 signed by Clinton

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/05/31/fcc/index.html

And when Howard Dean had the guts to mention re-regulation on Hardball in 2003...he was gone within 6 weeks from the campaign trail.

So let's not rewrite history, and let's not let our leaders do it either.

More on the Telecommunications Act of 1996

http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/06/28/telecom_dereg/index.html

Clear Channel became powerful then.

One Big Happy Channel.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/06/28/telecom_dereg/index.html

[madfloridian]

36. More on the Telecommunications Act which started things..

and caused the downhill slide in coverage which has led us to the present day.

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/U/htmlU/uspolicyt/uspolicyt.htm

"Generally, though the act provides for new possibilities for broadcasters and calls for the FCC to eliminate unnecessary oversight rules, a substantial portion of regulation implemented since the passage of the 1934 Act remains. Thus, while FCC Chairman Reed Hundt issued a statement that claimed that the ubiquitous world of telecommunications had changed forever, analysts and industry experts, remind us that the act amends, but does not replace, the Communications Act of 1934"

"Critics of the act claim its extensive deregulatory provisions coupled with relaxed restrictions on concentration of media ownership dilute the public responsibility guarantees built into the Communications Act of 1934 and tilt the preference in favor of private market forces. Critics claim that in many areas of the country which are not likely to see real competition, the cost of telecommunications and video services are likely to rise dramatically. Other critics oppose giving broadcasters extra spectrum at a time when the government could reap hundreds of millions of dollars for those frequencies through spectrum auction.

At this time it is too early to predict the outcomes of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Analysts and financial experts views are mixed but they predict market shake-outs and consolidations are likely to radically transform the telecommunications industry in the next few years as a result of the implementation of the act. "

[Tellurian]

47. Hi madflorian. welcome to this discussion...

I will tell you this...long ago when digital tv was on the horizon effectively replacing
analog tv, the republicans capitalized on this new medium going mainstream. Not that digital
tv was considered better to the extent of picture clarity...but because ANALOG tv was a freed up
medium that cannot use the same tv camera equipment the other forms such as HDTV or DIGITAL cable uses.

The analog tv may be the mainstream communication venue being used today by the Republicans, not so much that
the news may be edited differently, but whatever plans they have "to always be talking from the same page" is
communicated by and through the old analog tv's...most likely twice a day, morning and evening, even t-vo..instructions
are given; updates to prior inquiries are announced, future events listings..and most of all, a clearing house
for any questions or problems simply by dialing an 800# message answering machine stating someone will get back to
them in 24 hr or sooner, manned by a diligent answering staff... and so the party unification continues.

This is just my take on ways they are communicating without the interference of mainstream tv...which if my theory is correct, that if they did in fact follow through and really are using analog tv as a communication tool...well, we're at war aren't we?

[madfloridian]

51. As far as I am concerned....

I ended my part after what you said to someone in this thread that was so totally out of line I could not believe it.

So sense discussing when attacks like that are made on others in a thread.

[Tellurian]

53. where and who..?

I don't know what or who you're referencing..

J'Accuse?..be specific.

[madfloridian]

55. Ok, you asked. It is still there.

Carville and Clinton
Posted by Tellurian
were the only voices McAuliffe (I hate writing his name) was
listening to...
How do you know? Which one are you sleeping with??

You can trust me..I'll never tell...nobody reads these threads
anyway..

[Tellurian]

64. Yes, mad...In the interim

I found it...and if you care to read somore..

I left several response near and about it..

But now, your off topic..that is the basic rule of threads.

So, got any other ideas for the 08' election or are you going
to continue to emote over nonsense?

[madfloridian]

65. Oh, is there a rule bout going OT? No rules about slander?

Oh,,my, I am so glad blm is not insulted because I am.

And you are now calling it nonsense.

I am not believing this. I can not imagine what it is possible to say here and get away with now.

Now that I see this getting worse...I will back up. God only knows what you would say about me for going off topic.

[Armstead]

45. Bill -- Come to DU once in a while

You want to see the potential for Democrats to take advantage of the ass-kicking power of the Internet?

C'mon by and you might learn something.

[AX10]

46. At least someone is begining serious discussions about...

the problems with the media today.

[Tellurian]

48. Oh, and just in case it's to our benefit..

to make this a "secret thread" (I don't know how to do that) but seeing we are having
strategic discussions. It might be in our best interest to make this an invitation only
thread if you want to share ideas that won't be preempted by the Right.

[Arugula Latte]

56. Jesus. Most of us had figured out the media by 2000 or 2001 at the latest.

Why the fuck is it taking these mainstream Democrats so long to get it?

[paulk]

67. I think the point he makes is generally true

"But he said Democrats of his generation tend to be naive about new media realities. There is an expectation among Democrats that establishment old media organizations are de facto allies -- and will rebut political accusations and serve as referees on new-media excesses...."I think a part of it is we grew up in the '60s and the press led us against the war and the press led us on civil rights and the press led us on Watergate," Clinton said. "Those of us of a certain age grew up with this almost unrealistic set of expectations."..."


In fact, it's not just politicians - many Americans of that age group still haven't adjusted to the new paradigm - where Matt Drudge has replaced Walter Chonkrite as the face "news" coverage. Also, politicians are even more out of the loop than the rest of us - they don't have time to cruise the internet all day or surf the cable news networks...

[gulliver]

71. Dem leaders come with guts, IQ, and looks. Pick any two.

Clinton is one of the few with all three.

[TheDonkey]

72. It's difficult but we must beat down the media

stay on the offense.

[BootinUp]

78. Bill is teachin, pay attention please.

just a friendly request. :)

[Guaranteed]

79. Seems to me he's just catching on to what we've been saying

for quite awhile now.

[BootinUp]

80. His interpretation of what has happened

in the media and why we have been disadvantaged is a little different than the netroots version.

[madfloridian]

82. We have been fighting for years now.

He comes out in between visits with the Bushes and the Murdochs, and says the media is not favorable. Duh.

I am glad he is speaking out but he did not even know about the Downing Street memos.

He does not seem aware that we have been fighting against the media for years because of bills he signed in 96.

I am happy he is speaking out...great. But others have never stopped doing it.

[BootinUp]

83. I get tired of defending

a Rhodes Scholar, 2 Term President, still the most popular Democrat, around here. So tired.

[madfloridian]

85. You don't have to defend, we are not attacking.

Many here are simply saying that it is not fair for people to come here and have post after post that someone is FINALLY speaking out.

I am sorry, but others HAVE been speaking out about the media, about everything. We have many of our leaders who have been on the front line getting attacked.

Bill Clinton is very admired by Democrats and by those here who really take a chance on speaking up.

It is NOT that he is speaking up...it is the way it has been presented. Big Dog is back, Big Dog is speaking out, finally someone speaking out.

That is simply not fair to the 08 candidates, it just is not.

Kerry has been speaking out loudly, Edwards has, Clark has..not sure if he's running but he's campaigning like crazy for many candidates. They all are. Dean is all over the country getting the party on track.

It is good he is speaking out, but it is the way it is being presented often, like no one else has been and here comes Big Dog. That is what a lot of people are feeling but don't dare to say. Bill Clinton is admired and beloved by Democrats.

[BootinUp]

84. It was all Bill's fault Look!

On Feb. 1, 1996, the Telecommunications Act was passed by the House 414-16, and then by the Senate 91-5. President Bill Clinton signed the bill Feb. 8.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CMN/is_n3_v33/ai_18106518

[madfloridian]

86. Nievermind.

.

[NVMojo]

87. Kick! More Dems running for office need to get Clinton's point here!!!

[wisteria]

90. I question his concern at this time for our party's messages

and I think that kerry would have done fine, if he had more Dem support helping him defend himself. Oh, and about Republican's framing our candidates. Clinton has been framed. He was framed as a sex crazed politician, willing to use his clout to gain women's favors. He was accused of rape, he was supposed to have fathered a child of mixed race. He has no morals. He had questionable and shady business dealings. He mislead and used his influence as the President to lead on a young infatuated woman, then he lied about it. Yeah, he handles the media real well and he didn't allow the Republicans to define him. Not at all. LOL