A Troubling Pattern

[H2O Man]

"Newscaster Chet Huntley wrote a piece in LIFE magazine, containing what were considered unfavorable remarks. The suggestion for retaliation against Huntly, in a White House memo by Mr. Higley, contained a statement of broad philosophy: ‘What we are trying to do here is tear down the institution.’ …

"The broader tactics used against the press included meetings between Mr. Charles Colson and media representatives. In a summary of his meetings with the three network chief executives, he observed that they were terribly nervous about the Federal Communications Commission. He stated that, ‘although they tried to disguise this, it was obvious. The harder I pressed them (CBS and NBC) the more accommodating, cordial, and almost apologetic they became.’ He concluded by observing that ‘I think we can dampen their ardor for putting on "loyalty oppositions" type programs.’ …."
--The Senate Watergate Report; page 685

Older DUers will remember how the Nixon administration attempted to "control" the news media with heavy-handed tactics. There was everything from the pressure on network executives, to having the FBI "investigate" Daniel Schorr. These types of activities posed a threat to the First Amendment.

Michael Isikoff and David Corn report in their book "Hubris" about the way VP Dick Cheney focused on MSNBC’s Chris Matthews for his reporting on the Plame scandal. Cheney and Scooter Libby attempted to apply pressure on MSNBC executives to silence Matthews. Paul Wolfowitz complained to MSNBC that Matthews was anti-Semitic. Cheney had Libby call executives to say he was angry Matthews’ reporting. The book notes that the executives felt that pressure.

The Scooter Libby trial revealed further evidence of how the Office of the Vice President was monitoring MSNBC programming. These types of activities pose a threat to the First Amendment.

The comment by MSNBC’s David Shuster about Chelsea Clinton was clearly wrong, and there should be a consequence. However, the Washington Post is reporting that at a press conference, Senator Hillary Clinton "part of a ‘troubling pattern of demeaning treatment’ by MSNBC. ‘There has been a troubling pattern of comments and behaviors that has to be held accountable’, " Clinton told reporters. (Clinton Calls Shuster Comment ‘Part of Troubling Pattern’; Perry Bacon, Jr; Washington Post; Feb 9, 2008)

I am troubled by this attempt to "control" the media in a manner that clearly is going beyond simply addressing Shuster’s specific comment It is, I believe, part of a troubling pattern that poses a risk to the First Amendment.

[Adelante]

1. I've been thinking far too much about the Nixon era

Remembering the reactionary atmosphere and sensing a revival on the way. I so hope I am wrong.

[K Gardner]

2. K&R

[mutant80]

260. The Troubling Pattern is the Media has CRAPPED on 4 Liberal Candidates

The Troubling Pattern was Night after Night Swifthoaters were brought on
Hardball and spoken to as if they were valid witnesses.

The Troubling Pattern was Howard Dean's yell being played and replayed every
10 minutes on Cable TV.

The Troubling Pattern was Al Gore jeered at as a "Wuss" and a "Stiff" and
George W. Bush called "Presidential." Over and Over.

The Troubling Pattern was the Media beating the drum to stop counting
the FLA votes, by repeating over and over "Americans just want to Move On"

The Troubling Pattern is Comments like "Hillary's nasty Cackle" "Her Husband
screwed around got her elected," "Her kid is a Pimp"

The Troubling Pattern was Russert and Matthews piling on her instead of
conducting a debate.

The Troubling Pattern is THE MEDIA IS CONTROLLED. But not by Hillary clinton.
It is controlled by RIGHT WING CORPORATE INTERESTS.

The SAME interests that Kiilled off Clinton when she tried to reform our
Health Services years and years ago.

The same interests that send these hyenas all over the web to jeer at anything
Hillary.

What Shuster said was wrong - but he and all MSNBC talent are being encouraged
to go after HRC.

He is the wrong guy to terminate. Why didn't they pull Matthews, who is FAR WORSE
than Shuster. He has trashed Hillary almost daily for years.

They didn't pull Matthews because he is a sell-out to right wing interests.

They fired Shuster because he is Liberal. And he is articulate, and the Right Wing
wants him taken down. And this is their golden opportunity.

Do not blame Clinton for standing up to MSM.

Blame General Electric, NBC for seizing an opportunity.

[xxqqqzme]

276. I would add

'The Troubling Pattern' of the corporate media chorus endlessly chanting about the 'electability' of Kerry.

[defendandprotect]

290. Except Hillary has joined them -- she will move to the side of power . . . as Bill did . . .

[HughMoran]

3. Nah

I think you're over reading this and your recent posts suggest you are not neutral any more.

[H2O Man]

16. Tuesday

was the primary in my state. I made my final decision that morning, and wrote about it that afternoon. On Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and again today, I have posted pro-Obama statements. This may be the pattern that you have noticed. Is that a problem?

[HughMoran]

22. Not at all

I made a bad assumption that you would remain neutral during the primaries based on your previous posts.

:hi:

[chimpymustgo]

112. Unfortunately, some people get hit by the BAM! and lose their ability to see sexism or anything

that might be mistreatment - as long as it happens to someone other than "the chosen one". Hillary is talking about a pattern of personal attacks on the Clinton by many at MSNBC - which we have, at DU, howled about for years. But now supporters of Obama seem to see it as just "free speech".

You're full of it.

[Tellurian]

223. If you could possibly find a more minuscule argument to ruminate on

I wouldn't be surprised. It wasn't you that voiced a philosophical argument against the mayhem Tucker's bow tie may cause on black and white tv forcing him via a petition campaign into the structured acceptable men's attire of a shirt and tie on msnbc. Was it?

[bluesmail]

263. do you really think there's going to be an election

in'08?? The way they've snubbed their noses at that paper The Constitution, and oh, we won't be responding to any subpneas. Just wondering what you thought. Julie

[Just-plain-Kathy]

270. They'll be an election, but I doubt it will be an honest one.

Democrat or republican, the winner will be whoever the White House Mafia wants.

[defendandprotect]

291. We can't be sure they'll be an election --- See: The Huston Plant/Nixon Administration ---

and even if there is, we can't be sure there won't be another computer steal ---
steals which have been going on since the mid-1960's . . .!!!

[jkshaw]

4. I agree

And we both will most likely be excoriated for it. Both by people who truly are angry at us and others who are trying to be cute.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

5. The media is biased aganist specific candidates (Gore, Kerry, Clinton) pro-Bush/Obama

It was well-documented that they have been very biased. It would be one thing if it was based on qualifications or intellect but to be biased based on how well they "like" their personality (ie - they would rather drink a beer with Bush than with Gore) is outrageous. They are not giving people the real story.

[liberal N proud]

6. K&R

[sandnsea]

7. Imus, Matthews, Schuster

The troubling pattern is her silencing those who legitimately criticize her.

[Andromeda]

65. What a ridiculous statement.

Did you just pull that comment out of you a**?

Hillary objected to what Schuster said about Chelsea. If you were a mother you'd understand and if by chance you ARE a mother, I feel sorry for your kids---they must be pretty messed up.

And IMUS??? Hillary had nothing to do with that creep's suspension. He did it all by himself!

And Matthews will live another day to spit in everybody's face for ratings and I don't think Hillary will have any influence one way or the other whether the rest of the miserable cast of characters on MSNBC will report anything of substance or continue to verbally masturbate Hillary-haters like yourself.

[grouse00]

279. We have to speak up

When the MSM crosses the line, we have to speak up or they will gladly do the republicans' work for them! David Schuster, who I really like, was outrageously wrong to say what he said. Everyone would would have screamed bloody murder if that had been said about John McCain's daughter or Obama's daughters, why should we have a different standard when it's a Clinton? It was uncharacteristic of Schuster and probably a slip based on the "locker room banter" that characterizes MSNBC's coverage, but that cannot be excused so easily and we should back Senator Clinton when she challenges them.

I've received many of the emails slandering Obama that have made the rounds and without hesitation have taken the time to debunk them and send numerous links and a tongue lashing to those that forwarded them to me. I would do the same for any of our candidates. I praying that we can remember we are at war but not with each other and the democratic candidates but with corporatism of the last seven years as manifested in the republicans and this administration. If we are going to save our republic we had better keep our eye on the ball.

[KoKo]

84. What a dreadful misleading comment....n/t

[UpInArms]

206. after reading so many of that poster's negative and inappropriate comments,

I have finally resorted to adding her to my ignore list.

How sad it is that these folks just don't seem to understand that their own personal credibility is lost - they cannot see the forest for the trees.

:(

[ShortnFiery]

295. Yes, save for Imus (problems of his own making), I would concur with that statement. eom.

[mopinko]

8. how about holding bush accountable?

how bout that hill?
yeah i agree with you. look on the bright side. it is beginning to look like they wont have hillary to kick around much longer.

[Hutzpa]

9. Thank you, This guy deserves better

treatment than this, why are the Clintons making a mountain out of a mule is
disgraceful to our party.

Republicans are known for these type of cheap shot, not Democrats,
IMO the Clintons are taking us down a road I certainly do not
believe in and would like to travel on.

I hope there are others who feel this way.

He has apologies and suspended, what more do they want?


:crazy: :puke:

[mod mom]

51. David Shuster's reporting has always held the highest standards. He made a mistake.

Has everyone here forgotten his coverage during the Libby Trial? Should this young man's career be ruined for this one mistake? I certainly don't think so.

[KoKo]

90. He had to apologize just six months ago about getting his reporting facts wrong

when he went after a Female House Rep asking her about a soldier who was killed in her district. He kept repeating the soldiers name really going after her (browbeating)when she said she didn't know his name. Turns out the soldier wasn't from the Rep's district so she didn't know the name. He had to apologize.

Now some DU'ers think because the Rep was truly odious Republican Marsha Blackburn that Shuster was correct in browbeating her with information that was wrong. They think because she was a Repug and he got his facts wrong it was Her Fault. And, that she deserved what she got. But, the point is...he got his facts wrong and had to apologize. It may be he's being pressured to be tougher on females because MSNBC has some sort of policy that allows this...or he has a personal animosity to them.

I was a huge Shuster fan because of Plamegate reporting but the Blackburn incident (and believe me I detest Marsha Blackburn) sent up a flag for me when I saw how he acted with her...and the Chelsea comment really made me really wonder what was going on with him.

[polmaven]

265. And from WHERE are you getting

Should this young man's career be ruined ?

Should a young woman, working for her mother's campaign be maligned that way?

Was anything similar said about Mitt Romney's sons?

No one has said Shuster's suspension should go any further, but I really feel badly for you if you are saying that there should have been no discipline at all.

If this type of treatment had been given to ...say Michelle Obama...I would bet you would not feel the same way.

[defendandprotect]

292. You mean right-wing GE/NBC/MSNBC doesn't know the nature of the people ...

they put on the air ---

Of course, they do ---

Read Phil Donahue's comments on his shows and NBC interferences --- unbelievable!!!

GE sponsored Pat Buchanan's sexist, racist, homophobic comments for decades on that ridiculous
show on CNN --- what was the name of it? CROSSFIRE ---

A garbage show suggesting that this is the way that people should talk with one another---
while spewing sexist, racist, homophobic ideas.

[robbedvoter]

10. So, when Obama requested Carville and Begala be suspended for primaries by CNN

not that they said anything offensive/unacceptable about him , but just because they upset the 83% of his positive coverage - that would go into this pattern too, right?

[pdxmom]

12. Carville and Begala were also appearing on news shows as official

surrogates of the Clinton campaign. It is nowhere close to being the same. And they are only being kept from being analysts. Begala is all over CNN as a surrogate for Clinton.

[robbedvoter]

19. They were NOT surrogates however. And they were suspended at Obama's request

And of course, if HE did it, there must be a good reason for it.

[pdxmom]

49. They certainly are. That is how they were able to appear both on LKL

as surrogates and on the Situation Room as analysts. You can't do both. Begala and Carville both have been informal advisors during this campaign, they are definitely strong Clinton supporters trying to do analysis. When the only 2 Dem analysts you have sitting on your panel are both admitted Clinton supporters, then your coverage is biased and Obama was correct to call them on it. Just as Clinton was correct to call MSNBC on Shuster's comment.

[H2O Man]

29. Carville

"Matalin is married to James Carville ....She called him. ....

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it,' Carville said. 'I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney with the report."

State of Denial; Bob Woodward; page 344.

[mod mom]

47. Yep, here is the TPM account:

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.

The rest is history.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

[TacticalPeek]

56. That's a 2 yr old account of a 4 yr old incident, and has nothing to do with Obama's request

that Begala and Carville be suspended from CNN during the primaries, or whatever his request was in that matter.

As another reason for some to dislike or distrust Carville or not, it stands on it's on. Obama did not make his request because of this thing in 2004, he did so because of their appearances and biased coverage in recent weeks and they were suspended last month. With which I agree by the way, since either that had to done, or some rotation of similar advocates for the other candidates had to be rotated through and that sounds highly unworkable to me: hence, they should go temporarily.

Bottom line, Obama persuaded the network to alter their coverage of him in a very substantial way. More power to him. Any questions of propriety or wisdom of judgement pertain to particular facts of a particular case of the politician leaning on the press: why, what are the reasons; how is the pressure applied; how does the news organization respond, what are feasible alternatives etc. Knowing those things then let you decide if the pressure is corrupt or the response inadequate and so forth.

It's proper for Obama to try to influence his coverage just like it's proper for Clinton to try to influence her converage.

Seems simple to me.

[livvy]

125. Are you forgetting who has pledged support to Obama?

Kerry. Obama would be wrong and naive not to be suspicious of Carville. I'd imagine he and Kerry have had discussions about the '04 incident. I would think what happened in '04 probably did have something to do with the request.

Networks should cover all candidates in a fair manner. Candidates should call out those that don't. Both Clinton and Obama have done that, and like you stated it's proper. I don't think it should be taken beyond that once the networks have responded.

Seems simple to me, too.

[papau]

281. so what re Carville? - and nonsense if you think noting a networks spin is "controlling the press" I

have seen much more reasoned posts from your postings and indeed look forward to reading them - but this one is just Obama fever, in my opinion.

God forbid a good word be said about Hillary - or any word be said about the campaign by someone that the network points out is in favor of Hillary.

As for Matalin - I dislike her as much as anyone - and Carville is an idiot to talk to his wife about "secrets" (albeit this one was not much of a secret - regardless of how Woodward tries to spin it).

But you started a thread about a push back against pro-Obama bias that had gone into smear/bad taste/ and lies by implication - and called that push back a threat to free speech.

I suggest you review your position after noting the Obama wife 160% salary increase is never discussed in the media, the 17 year Rezko affair is never discussed as a 17 year close relationship with a special profit ($300,000 discount/split delayed financing/purchase of land that had appreciated 10% based on same year sale price of rest of parcel but at the prior years price), the slum lord lawyering is described as fighting for fair treatment of tenants in Section 11 housing, the flip/flops are never discussed, the playing of the race card by Obama (yes - by Obama - because he is too smart to not understand the MLK himself noted that the movement was not enough - there needed to be a legislature and a president to get laws changed, and Obama surrogates pretending hustle, jive and shake mean something on a basketball court from the 30's and not the post NBA meaning, along with young and kid becoming a 1930's "boy" - sent out by Obama folks and screamed out in the anti-Clinton media), the lack of real accomplishment as a legislator not noted as the media replaces fact with the repeating of the grandiose titles of small amendments - even ones that never passed - and gives a pass on 3 "wrong" votes because Obama says he pushed the wrong button, plus the 130 present votes to avoid taking a position - which Obama media excuses because a dozen of those votes were on abortion and one group - planned parenthood - is fine with those dozen votes ignoring that another - NOW - is not, the Obama "depends on what "is" is statements that imply Clinton administration sucked -but when called on that scream that the Clintons are liars you can not trust because he never used wording that was exactly like the wording used by Bill in discussing the Obama statement

The media says noting about the above - but allows Russert/Matthews/Shuster to smear the Clintons with "observations"/implications/assumptions of facts not in evidence.

And you find the idea of noting the MSNBC bias is a threat to our First Amendment? I suggest the main threat is a populace that allows such biased media happenings to go unchallenged - or worse - defends them.

[Cooley Hurd]

17. Shuster is not working for Obama...

:eyes:

[truedelphi]

235. Funny that the Clintonistas don't get upset

Over the Conflict of interest that Carville and Begala represent.

But it helps them so, um, it's cool.

[moondust]

11. Let's see "the pattern."

She needs to document her claim.

I've never known Shuster to be mean-spirited. He's a fun guy.

[VolcanoJen]

13. Really good post, H2O.

Thank you. Damn, I'm going to miss watching Schuster kick Joe Scarborough around in the mornings. :-(

[sandyj999]

190. That was what made it worth watching. n/t

[elixir]

274. Yeah, "really good post H2O man" ....duuuurrrrrrhhhhh.

[Me.]

14. I Heard That Statement

And why I think Shuster mis-spoke unfortunately, I think the Clinton campaign perceives that MSNBC in the form of Tweety and KO are not on her team and would welcome a chance to make them irrelevant. I think they should be careful about not pushing this too far. After all she has never called out Faux for the many terrible things they've said about her, albeit, not her daughter. I will also add that I could never be friends with a man who made such a terrible joke about me and my daughter as McCain made, yet she does claim friendship with him.

[Cooley Hurd]

15. During the Lewinsky affair, MSNBC was "all Lewinsky-all the time..."

They had John Gibson (yes, THAT John Gibson), Chris Matthews and Brian Williams hammering away at the scandal, non-stop. There was one holdout - a broadcaster who refused to devote anything but a minimum of time to it. The program was called "The Big Show", and the broadcaster was Keith Olbermann. They pressured him to do so, but he walked away from it all - demoting himself to just covering sports on ESPN.

Ten years later, MSNBC has excelled, both in journalism AND in its ratings, to be one of the few corporate media outlets to dare call the emperor on his lack of clothing. Keith Olbermann is back, and his program, "Countdown" is a shining light in a dark sea of mediocre, self-serving journalism. Another bright star on MSNBC has been David Shuster. He clearly had a lapse in judgment in referring to Chelsea Clinton's support of her mother as "pimping." But, that's about it - in every other regard, he's been a solid journalist in a era of hacks.

K&R!:thumbsup:

[navarth]

231. amen. n/t

[Berry Cool]

297. Excellent summary, CooleyHurd

Just one small correction: after his first stint at MSNBC, Olbermann went on to Fox Sports, which is how he became a "disgruntled former Fox employee." But at that point, he had indeed returned to doing strictly sports.

I'm glad things have changed. And I agree with you and H2O Man about Shuster.

[eppur_se_muova]

18. Dang, H2O Man, it sure would be nice to *forget* the Nixon era ...

but I keep thinking about what happens to those who fail to learn from history.

[defendandprotect]

293. In fact, we still living Nixon and Watergate --- it's no where near over yet . . ..

[robbedvoter]

20. The pattern of sexism - amd patent bias is troubling to me (but not to you

obviously).
Do not worry, big bad Hillary has no way of CONTROLLING the media which - for now acts as surrogates for Obama.
Be reassured, the 83% positive coverage balance for your candidate will not be upset by the Mighty Clenis

[H2O Man]

21. I am surprised

that you would write something so obnoxious to me.

[question everything]

36. Not as obnoxious as your original post

The Obama people can dish it out but cannot take it.

When I pointed how Obama wins caucuses because no one checks registration and qualification to vote - the Obams supporters are offended.

When I wonder whether he would have generated that much support and enthusiasm with exactly the same speeches and books and history, but with more white in his skin and hair - people here are offended

Yes, he will be the nominee. People do not vote on the issues but on trivial reasons. Women "hate" Clinton because she stayed married, while young women vote for Obama because they get orgasmic.

But if you think that whatever Obama supporters are trying to bury will not surface in the general elections, you are going to be sadly shocked.

[countingbluecars]

39. I think you need to

reread the OP. He is talking about threats to the First Amendment. It was not about Obama.

[ruggerson]

42. Bullshit. The OP is shilling for Obama while pretending to be above the fray

and shilling very obnoxiously by posting vile thread after thread comparing Senator Clinton to Richard Nixon.

It needs to be called out.

[burythehatchet]

57. you poor child. It will be the summer of your discontent won't it

and you'll have H2Oman to blame.

[ruggerson]

213. Puerile

n/t

[H2O Man]

60. Well please do.

I think that what has you so upset is that I am making fairly good comparisons, that people listen to. If I wasn't, you wouldn't be having your little crisis. So, I'll give you plenty of opportunity to debate me. Ha!

[puebloknot]

105. I've been exchanging messages with H20 man for a couple of years now.

I haven't come to any conclusion about who will get my vote, and I don't necessarily agree with H20 man about his support for Obama. But this much I will say: There is no one -- NO ONE -- posting at DU who has any more intelligence and integrity than this man.

He has continued to post thoughtful, well-researched articles for the whole time I've been here. He has shown himself to be balanced and deeply interested in trying to create some kind of bridge between the warring factions here, in the interest of putting a Democrat in the White House, and maybe, just maybe, cut into the tyranny that has taken over our country.

I am sometimes on the other side of issues with H20 man. I am constantly torn between trying to toe the line as a good Democrat, because the other choice is so absolutely horrible, and trying to stop the delusional and divisive untruths that get posted here. At some point, we have to face the fact that the differences between *all* the candidates in this race are not nearly as great as we would like to think. "Our guy," "our gal" are compromised, and I don't know how we are ever going to come back from that. But the very ground upon which the Democratic Party was founded relies heavily on freedom of speech. When we lose that, we've lost every possibility for any kind of influence over what happens to our country. The issue of a free press should be of paramount concern to any Democrat, and that is what I took from the OP!

H20 man is not a shill for anyone. He has shown enough intgrity on this board to cause me to give thought to why he has chosen to support Obama. Since when did supporting a given candidate become "shilling"?

I don't believe in blind loyalty to any political party. Even when H20 man has counseled our trying to come together with respect for various Democratic candidates (when I am troubled that those candidates have been chosen *for* us in less than straightforward ways), I have never seen a single post from him that was not thoughtfully presented.

Let's keep it honest and real here. If you disagree with the OP, I would sincerely like to hear your point of view. I've learned a lot since I first started reading here. Agressive one-liners are not the best way to persuade those of us reading here to consider alternative viewpoints.

[rosesaylavee]

114. Well stated!

To say that H2O Man is a shill for anyone - beyond laughable. There is no one other person here on DU other than Skinner who is more even handed with what he writes and models an unmatched civility here. His concerns are foremost about regaining our rights again and secondly about maintaining our overall unity as Democrats.

The posters above are longtime DUers and have usually had reasoned, well-thought out posts I thought. Perhaps the emotion of the moment is overwhelming the best of us and is allowing the many "new" rabid posters on this board to now determine the general tone of discussion with the excessive drivel and dreck that fills GDP these days.

[H2O Man]

115. Thank you.

The candidates that are now in the running are not the among the first choices that I would pick. I have made no secret that I am from the progressive left, and that I think in terms of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party and the Rainbow Coalition. I am aware, however, that the choices now are down to three: Obama, Clinton, or non-democrat.

I am a democrat, who has become accustomed to people from the moderate to conservative branch of the party telling me that my friends and I are of less value than their group. They want our votes, they want our financial contributions, and they want our time as volunteers for their causes. But they don't want to hear us, much less consider us as equal members of the democratic party, with a right to our own opinion.

Any time two people think exactly alike, it means only one is thinking. I do not expect anyone else to agree with me on everything. As I've noted before, I do not always agree with myself. But there are ways to disagree which are constructive, and ways which are destructive. I have decided to endorse Obama because of his philosophy on conflict resolution.

It is interesting to note that in the months when I had not endorse any one candidate, and wrote about the positive aspects of each democrat, that the supporters of almost every candidate were okay with that. The only exception were some of the Clinton supporters -- not all of them, of course, but only them -- who felt the right and/or need to call me a variety of insulting names.

By no coincidence, the person that you responded to is a DUer who has for years taken cheap shots at me. Other DUers have noticed the pattern, and we think it's a giggle. I do not expect that everyone will like me! So while I thank you for saying what you did, I just want to point out that it is a long-standing chip on that person's shoulder. He carries that weight.

[ruggerson]

209. It's about intellectual honesty

Weeks ago, I knew by the tenor, tone and content of his posts that he was going to vote for Barack Obama, despite his posts declaring that he had not "endorsed" either candidate (I believe he actually employed that word, a very clever way of being able to agitate for one candidate while pretending to remain neutral).

I have no qualms about him supporting Obama. That's what this country, and this election is all about. What bothers me is the underhanded and sly methodology. As you can see from numerous other posts on this thread, I am hardly alone in my concerns. Most people are very upfront about whom they support. I question why one wouldn't be.

That said, if you would like to know why I disagree with H20 Man about the choices we have in this primary season, it is because I think the DC/NY chattering classes have it wrong (what else is new). It is Senator Clinton, not Barack Obama, who stands history's best chance of becoming a trasnformational figure in American politics. Obama is telegraphing to us that he wishes to be a co opting President - he wants to compromise with the Republicans, incorporate part of their agenda for the sake of unity and progress. I have written about this extensively, most recently here, if you wish to read it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4361720&mesg_id=4361720

I'd be interested in your thoughts. If H20 Man reads it, I'd be interested in his as well.

[H2O Man]

212. You are simply wrong.

Had John Edwards remained in the contest, I had planned to vote for him. I knew he was behind, but wanted to make a statement in favor of his ideas.

It is always an error to assume that you know what anyone else really thinks. You continue to make that error, which says quite a bit about you.

[ruggerson]

214. I'd be interested in your response to the link

I included in my post

[Sam Ervin jret]

232. your point about obama being the more conciliatory toward the Republicans may be true or not but

in an election when we need the independent vote as well as the party faithful Hillary appears to be more divisive to major groups of American people.

And I say MAy because we cannot Know he will "reach across the aisle" in any way that matters fundamental to the party of to progressive values by rhetoric. only by vote.

that's why specifics, and not hyperbolic rhetoric is helpful.

And I say Hillary "appears" more divisive because the credibility of our main stream media is in question and appearances can be deceptive.

Light not heat is called for here.

[puebloknot]

251. I'm taking Sunday off to air my brain, pat the dogs. Will read and responde later! nt

[mrreowwr_kittty]

130. You managed to be racist, sexist, and stupid all in one post. Impressive.

:applause:

[burythehatchet]

225. that's like scoring a triple double in basketball. s/he's like the Kobe of DU n/t

[robbedvoter]

285. I am surprised you equate Hillary with Nixon. Someone more articulate than me

said it better here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4530931

I am just reminding you: before embracing Obama, MSNBC enbraced Bush. In both elections and in between. It used to be called here MSGOP.
Except for KO, they are all vicious propagandists - no Woodwards and Bersteins there.
Hillary has no magic powers over GE. If the Clintons did, maybe the whole horrible Arkansas Project might have been stopped during Clinton's presidency.
You are defending GE's tool for calling a candidate daughter a whore. Don't expect any respect from me. I had it for you, I lost it all.
It's too bad when people I respected get sucked in the loyalty for a candidate that abandon any human decency and principle.

P.S> Were you equally upset when Kerry DEMANDED THAT THE ENTIRE MEDIA not cover Florida primaries? Almost 2 million voters?

[GalleryGod]

23. Hill's Batshite

:nopity: **













**Another "Douchebag for Liberty":puke:

[ShortnFiery]

32. Since it's clear that HRC and her people are trying to *intimidate* the media as a candidate,

can you imagine the ARROGANCE and HEAVY-HANDED TACTICS that HRC's Executive Branch will use to *control the message* should HRC and Bill be made President and First Gentleman? :scared:

[milkyway]

24. In sports it's called "working the refs." She's trying to get the next calls to be made in

her favor. In other words, as you suggest, control the coverage.

What I think she's also doing is trying to force MSNBC to go softly at her in the debate they're sponsoring at the end of the month. MSNBC will be trying so hard to show they are not anti-Hillary, that they will give Obama much tougher questions. I wouldn't be surprised if the questions for Hillary aren't much tougher than the ones asked the other night during her Hallmark infomercial.

[Samantha]

25. A couple of years following the Election 2000 debacle

I was tuned to the Capital Gang, as it went to break. The microphone was still on, but Margaret Carlson did not know that. She referenced the controversy and said to someone seated next to her, "Oh, but we are not allowed to talk about that." Amazing, was it not?

Who had the authority to censor the political commentators from discussing that historical controversy? I assume it was not the network, because commentators on other networks were silent on it, as well.

Yes, it is a troubling pattern, and Hillary Clinton is adding to it. Shuster's comment contained the word "pimp" in a political connotation, not a sexual situation. Many writers and commentators are "spiking" their jargon to rivet attention to their work. The spitball in Shuster's sentence was fired directly at the Clinton parents, not their offspring. One might say his verb usage was regrettable, but one might also say the same thing about Bill Clinton's sentence: "That depends on what your definition of is is." Just to make a further distinction, that statement of Bill Clinton's obviously WAS made with a sexual connotation (as opposed to political, as was Shuster's). Many Americans insisted Bill Clinton should resign from his job, when they perceived Bill Clinton had lied when he made that statement. Bill Clinton kept his job.

In light of Shuster's apology for his verb usage, the question remains: if a President of the United States can abuse a linking verb in a sentence revolving around a sexual controversy and keep his job, why cannot a commentator who apologizes for a misunderstood verb? Double standard on the Clintons' part?

Sam

[Tatiana]

26. She is continuing the pattern established by Cheney and Libby.

NOT a good thing. It is continuing a dangerous precedent for intimidation or manipulation of the fourth estate.

Have a problem with specific media personalities? Do what Jon Stewart did and publicly confront them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmj6JADOZ-8

That's what I call an effective response to a legitimate issue. And where's Crossfire today?

Oh yeah. CANCELED.

[fuzzy otter pop]

109. DAMN Skippy!!!!!!!!!

it is all dirty pool
aimed to shut up anyone who challenges the status quo

call it

procedural disenfranchisement if you want to sound academic

but rock bottom

it is about silencing critics

as in

"you used the wrong word or spelling or whatever...."

therefore your voice must be silenced

[ShortnFiery]

27. The Clintons have played that "perpetual victim card" too many times, NO SALE!

:thumbsdown:

[bigtree]

28. I don't get it. We've been complaining about that 'troubling pattern' for years

Now, when Clinton says it, it's somehow sinister. You've gone right over the deep end with this one, H2O Man.

[H2O Man]

31. Really?

Are you really going to say that you do not see any difference between a citizen contacting a news station, and someone in the federal government? Is that really what you want to say?

[ruggerson]

41. Obama contacted CNN and had Carville and Begala canned

until after the election.

Are you going to start a thread comparing Barack Obama to Richard Nixon?

It is awfully chilling to the First Amendment for his campaign to strongarm CNN this way isn't it, H2Oman?


http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/01/cnn_says_no_mor.php

"Interestingly, not everyone at CNN appears to agree with this decision. "People inside CNN are surprised," one person involved with CNN programming told me. "No other network buckled to this political pressure. CNN has removed from its lineup top analysts who know about the national political scene."

[Warren Stupidity]

182. Carville and Begala are Clinton operatives.

It is manifestly unfair for one side in a contest to have open access to a major media outlet not available to others.

[ruggerson]

211. But it's stifling of free speech!

(not that I believe that, but that's the sad argument put forth in this Shuster imbroglio).

[rox63]

239. I'm curious - Are they on the Clinton campaign's payroll as consultants?

If they are, they definitely should not be on the news in any role other than as surrogates for her campaign.

[Warren Stupidity]

242. I'm curious - do you know who these two men are?

Please google their biographies and pay attention to their association with the Clintons. The answer is no, neither one is officially on the campaign staff.

[rox63]

271. I know exactly who they are

And I know how they fucked with the Dem's chances in the 2004 presidential election. :grr: I was just curious if they were actually being paid for their efforts on behalf of Clinton. Perhaps they're expecting their payoff is she ends up winning? :shrug:

[bigtree]

45. These officials' families are not fair game for wanton character attacks

in these political skirmishes.

Are YOU saying that they should not speak out against these abuses? Or, that she should wait until she's out of office to defend her daughter? She spoke the truth. Does that matter to you?

[H2O Man]

58. She said that

David's comment was part of a "troubling pattern." I do not think that is true.

It was a bad thing for Shuster to say. I think it's good for citizens to contact MSNBC and complain. If Clinton had contacted them as a private citizen, I'd be okay with that. My concern is even less about her attempt to exploit the situation for political gain -- this isn't a tickling contest -- than it is the attempt to control the media. I don't think that politicians should be able to use the power of their office to control the media. Do you?

[TacticalPeek]

70. I don't think that politicians should be able to use the power of their office to control the media.

I don't think that politicians should be able to use the power of their office to control the media.



Then you therefore don't think that Obama should have done this, correct?

Exclusive: After Obama Complaints, CNN Bans James Carville And Paul Begala From Appearing As Analysts Until Dem Primary Is Settled

January 24, 2008 -- 7:11 PM EST // //

Okay, this is interesting. I've just learned that CNN has told top Dem strategists James Carville, Paul Begala, and Robert Zimmerman -- who are CNN mainstays but are all Hillary supporters -- that they will not be doing any more political analysis on the network until the Democratic primary has reached a conclusion.

I'm also told that this move came after the Obama campaign repeatedly complained to high level officials at CNN about the presence of Carville and Begala on the network.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/01/cnn_says_no_mor.php

Did you disapprove of this at the time? Did it give you the Nixon creeps?

Do you disapprove of it now? If not, is it because Obama is a more "private citizen" than Clinton? How so? And how can any Senators, Presidential contenders, act simply as "private citizens" during a campaign in matters like this?

[H2O Man]

72. To be fair,

I'll admit that I do not know enough about that to have an opinion. I am not really going to take the word of some of the more histrionic folks who are asking me about it. But, although you and I disagree on the issue that I posted about, I think that you are generally an intelligent and decent person. So I shall take some time to look and see if what your side is presenting is close to accurate. My feelings about the Bill of Rights/US Constitution are not prone to change.

The idea of public officials being engaged in high profile activities being distinct from private citizens actually supports my position.

[EFerrari]

76. The Obama campaign complained that Clinton surrogates were presented

as neutral commentators?

That's your counter example? :wtf:

[bettyellen]

126. aren't they both arguing that the stations need to have a policy- clear guideleines

that are enforced. whether it's regarding a conflict of interest or sexism, i think they are both right to do so.
there was no strong arming to firing, that's a projection for those who already dislike hilary. it's bullshit.

[Little Star]

111. Obama contacted CNN and had Carville and Begala taken off the

their air. What say you about that. I know you said nothing about it being his attempt to exploit the situation for political gain. What say you about Obama being the first to use this tactic, if thats what you believe Hillary did.

[Whisp]

247. and after 35 years of 'experience', she suddenly now

realises this troubling pattern? smack dab in the middle of her campaign?

not buying.

[riskpeace]

30. Could you please be more specific?

How does Senator Clinton's statement defending her daughter who was implicitly called a prostitute threaten the First Amendment?

I certainly read and appreciated your threads on the Plame story. I very much respect your opinion. I know that Mr. Shuster did a very thorough job covering this important story.

At the same time, Mr. Shuster was not covering a story about outing a CIA agent during wartime. He was having a conversation with another pundit. And as another poster pointed out, the other pundit, Mr. Press, interrupted Mr. Shuster in the middle of his "pimped out" question. And Mr. Shuster went ahead with his comment. As you say, his comment was clearly wrong and merits a response.

What do you think the appropriate consequence should be? Do you think this is related to Chris Matthews stating that Senator Clinton was in her current position only because her 'husband messed around?'

Just as Joe Wilson instinctively and rightly defended his spouse, so Senator Clinton defended her daughter when it was suggested that her parents were pimping her out.

It would help me understand your perspective if you could take the time to be more specific about this particular incident and its implication for the First Amendment, as opposed to the Plame case and Mr. Matthews' and Mr. Shuster's exemplary reporting on that matter.

I appreciate your time.

[H2O Man]

35. It's pretty simple.

Joe Wilson was a private citizen, who responded to people employed by the federal government in Washington, DC who were engaged in a conspiracy to expose his wife's identity, which put her and many other people's lives at risk.

Senator Clinton was responding to a distasteful comment by a reporter on a cable news station. In her response, she refers to it as part of a "troubling pattern." Unless you are able to provide other examples of Mr. Shuster making other comments that were similar in nature, I would think that we might agree that Senator Clinton's statement is incorrect. Instead, it appears to be more of a case of a person using the power of their position to effect the media reporting.

[bettyellen]

50. the troubling pattern was a direct reference to MSNBC, not Shuster.

I beleive we have seen a troubling pattern at FOX as well, but few believe they're actually unbiased.
MSNBC is masquerading as unbiased at this point. There is a pattern, and it is troubling to women.

[Whisp]

104. this troubling pattern has it's roots in the Fairness Doctrine

changes that Bill Clinton had a hand in that has affected media conduct in a much more serious way than a loner journalist striken with temporary tourettes syndrome.

If Hillary is so concerned about the troubles with the media - she had 35 years to improve it but chose not to.
Now for her to sound all involved and concerned over basically what should have been handled like a personal issue sounds dishonest.

[bettyellen]

113. sexist slurs in the media are not just a presonal issue- they affect all women

shame on people looking the other way. you should worry about your own karma- peoplee calling your daughter or wife a whore... you'll have to tell her they "asked for it" because that's what you're saying now to Hil.

turned another page, my ass. you turn on the TV, or come here- and would think it's the fifties.

[Whisp]

164. I don't feel any shame.

I have always been against the Iraq war and am proud to not bend on that.

It's Clinton's karma that isn't doing as well - as she has part responsibility about a lot of dead daughters of Iraq and dead daughters of the american military.

how I wish she would have fought for them and their lives as ferociously as she is fighting a lone journalist with a potty mouth.

spin all you like -accuse me of whatever you like - stomp your feet in dismay - I cannot equate what you say is such a terrible sin and huge step backward for womankind - to what is reality over in Iraq.

[bettyellen]

240. stomping your feet? i'm not childish enough to be distracted or simple enough to have

to limit myslef to one concern in my head at one time. but you digress. we weren;t talking about the war, were we?
why don;t you stomp off to another thread, where that's being discussed, and spare us grownups your little tamtrum.
because child, we can discuss other things. and we were, before your immature little interuption.
go take a nap.

[Whisp]

245. no, let's not talk about that four letter word: Iraq.

messes up all the support the woman warmonger meme just because she's a woman.
and while we are at it, make all past and present issues of sexism revolve around 'pimp' and forget that MOTHERS IN IRAQ NOW HAVE YOUNG DAUGHTERS PROSTITUTING THEMSELVES JUST TO SURVIVE. partly because an american 'feminist', Hillary, went along with an insane mysogynist pyscho.

[bettyellen]

257. *pats on head* u run along now....

[Whisp]

258. very patriarchal of you.

I am free in my thoughts. I hang them not on another person but on my life and experience. Yours may be different, and I appreciate differentness.

but My nose is working well and when I smell something stinking, I grimace first before looking for gender.

[bettyellen]

262. you are the one telling people they have no right to discuss sexism- that YOU"LL DECIDE whats' worth

talking about. except- i don;t fucking think so.
it's called threadjacking.
piss off already.
go find an iraq thread.
but don;t dare tell me not to discuss sexism in the media.

[Whisp]

266. au contraire.

I have been in the trenches of sexism all my life just because I am a woman. just as many others do being not quite status quo.

I am not pretending to have worth in Telling People what to think. or not . it just doesn't work that way. I just stick to certain things that mean something for me and hold on tight. it's taken years to get a grasp, and I am finding one. It's mine, not yours.

[TacticalPeek]

215. "the Fairness Doctrine changes that Bill Clinton had a hand in"

The Fairness Doctrine was eliminated in 1987 by the FCC. Ronald Reagan was President. Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas and had no hand whatsoever in the unanimous FCC vote to repeal/revoke the doctrine.

If you have evidence that the mighty power of the Clenis™ could sway Reagan's FCC and the numerous federal court proceedings in that matter, you'll need to post a damn impressive link or two before I could accept such a strange notion.

:shrug:

[riskpeace]

133. Sorry for my delay in replying

I think she was including other MSNBC anchors and reporters in her observation of a "troubling pattern." I do watch Hardball several times a week. I think that Mr. Matthews has been unfair in his coverage of Senator Clinton. His dislike for her is evident to me. After the NH primary, he said that he would never underestimate her again. About 12 hours later, he said that the only reason she was a Senator was because her husband "messed around." That is troubling to me.

It must be months now since Mr. Matthews started talking about Senator Clinton's "cackle." In my opinion, that is demeaning and sexist language.

This is an interesting article I found on MSNBC reporters and a pattern of sexist statements at Media Matters http://mediamatters.org/items/200802080012?f=h_top.

I disagree that Senator Clinton was incorrect in objecting to a reporter saying that she was pimping her daughter out.

[H2O Man]

138. Thank you.

I think that this is an issue that people can view in a number of ways. You have a different opinion, but it is reasoned and rational.

There is no question that Mr. Matthews dislikes the Clintons, and that his personal opinion has influenced his commentary. I do not think that is a bad thing in and of itself -- I note that few of the DUers who are respoinding in a histrionic manner to me are deeply offended by, say, Keith O making his contempt for certain politicians known.

I also share the concern that some journalists are expressing sexist beliefs that have to be confronted. I do not think it is limited to attacks on women, and I do not think that sexism can or should be separated from the other ugly "-isms" that continue to contaminate our culture.

[riskpeace]

142. Well then we agree on a lot

I know if Mr. Shuster had used that language about a member of my family or a friend, I would have been very annoyed. We'll have to see if Senator Clinton's action helps to address the troubling pattern you recongize.

I do think there's a difference between Mr. Matthews' diminishing Senator Clinton with comments about personal attributes and Mr. Olbermann holding President Bush in contempt for his policies.

As you say, that's just my opinion. My friend used to say 'There's three sides to every story: my side, your side, and the truth.' I guess that's what makes politics and persuasion so interesting.

[H2O Man]

147. I suspect that

the democratic party's strength is largely a result of having people who think differently being able to find common ground. This primary has become a curious situation, though, because there is a similar amount of support for both Clinton and Obama -- and there is a third group, that does not think either is representative of their beliefs and values. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[bettyellen]

154. KOs contempt for Bush is expressed in critcism of his policies- his lies and the results

as emotional as Keef gets, it's solidly grounded in criticisng his actions on the job.
how can you compare that to likening Chelsie to a whore? and with tweety, calling Hil: shrill, a cackler? this is the same to you?
i don't believe i read you right.

[H2O Man]

156. I don't think

that you read me right. It's not what I said.

[bettyellen]

161. so, why liken the two? because this is what Hillary is talking about, and it is valid

there is a pattern of sexism here... and msnbc ought to have some standards- some policies enacted and enforced because they are routinely insulting half of the country. and their anchors seem to be clueless as to what's acceptable. it's disturbing to me, it feels like the 60's again.
shuster's apology did not admit he was wrong in the least-it was a total non- apology- which is why i thought hil said it wasn't enough. but she mentioned the station's pattern very specifically - yet people hear her say off with his head. doesn;t make it true.
we didn;t hear anyone call for anyone to be fired- i think that's the huge <histronic> <victim card> overreaction here.
i don't see what hil did as being any different from obama as to reminding the news programs that they should have standards. i think they are both correct in doing so. airing the issues brings them to light. gets the elctorate to thinking about it.
to ignore this, to make light of it- is to throw half the voters under the bus, and likening us all to whores. nice.

[H2O Man]

194. I'm going to try

to answer you, but not in a direct way. I think that some of the things I'm saying are being misunderstood. There are a few people on the thread that I'm not concerned with -- I'd prefer that we disagree on everything. But you are making some good points that deserve my making a serious attempt to respond to. I hope that you read this, and though it will not make it where we see eye-to-eye, it might make my position a bit clearer.

My wife grew up in an upper middle class, democratic family in upstate NY. She has two brothers. Her family did not value females. From the outside, they appear a high-functioning, nice family. But any family that does not value females as being equal to males has real problems. Some of them are as obvious and easy to discuss as parents going to their sons' every high school sporting events, but none of their daughter's (even when she won NYS titles); or parents who foot the entire bill for their sons' college education, but not being willing to help the daughter (who has her master's). Other parts of the dysfunction are more severe.

We live about 12 miles from her parents and brothers. We have two daughters, who are outstanding kids. But none of them have anything to do with my wife and daughters. They have not, since the day that I told her parents that it was unacceptable for them to treat their daughter disrespectfully. Nor will I allow anyone -- anyone -- to mistreat my daughters. And I am confident that they are becoming the type of individuals who would not accept mistreatment.

Part two: Two of my nephews and another black friend were on our high school basketball team. The coach, who I never cared for in our childhood, would not play them at the same time. We asked him why not? He said because it wouldn't be "fair" to other teams. Was that racist? I'll let you decide. We convinced him to play all three, and we were off to the races! State title and all.

A gang motivated by racial hatred was angry that one nephew got so much press. They attacked him in a dark parking lot. They hit him from behind with either a rock or bottle, knocking him unconscious, and then beat him until they were convinced he was dead. The doctors said the severity of his injuries would have killed most people. He lived, but has injuries that will last his lifetime.

The administration at the high school my nephews attended did not want any faculty commenting to the press. They were concerned that violence could flare between communities. However, the coach told a reporter that the attack was a racial hate crime. Where he may have been wrong on one thing, he was also right on another.

I am not unaware of the ugly nature of sexism, racism, and other "-isms." I know what scars are left from ignorance and hatred. I confront them in the way that I think is best. I am not perfect, but I do try to do the right thing.

[bettyellen]

196. um, that's all well and good. hil is trying to get MSNBC to do the right thing

and it saddens me the amount of obama people here trying to muddy the waters. making this about bill or the fairness doctrine.
claiming she's playing this card or that.
she's right about what's going on at msnbc, it's very disturbing. i think many of obama's people are short sighted, claiming this is about things it's not. but, they don;t like anger, or bigotry as an issue. so, it's fine for them to play the shrill card, since barack doesn;t allow himself outrage.
it's been an eyeopener. not in a god way. i am truly regretting my vote for barack, based on his non reaction, and because of that- how short sighted so many of his supporters are being, how they are willing to turn a blind eye towards this bigotry. so much for unity. as another progressive element is thrown under the bus.

[H2O Man]

216. You see it

very differently than I do. That is okay. I do not think that you are "bad" or "wrong" for having your opinion. I would like the same consideration, but am okay with it if that isn't going to happen. I am confident enough in my position that the disagreement isn't a problem for me.

[bettyellen]

218. well it's nice you can accept i am arguing this in good faith.

i wish a lot of obama's supporters could give hil some credit here. her point is valid.
if she were a man, half the people here would expect him to kick shusters ass
hil is in a bind. very frequent situation for a woman in politics- nothing she does is deemed appropriate. that's become pretty clear.

i know you're heart is in the right place, but i have to say- it doesn't seem like the rest of you has caught up. your response was very disappointing. instead of actually talking about msnbc, i got to hear how very much you respect your daughters. talk about going on a tangent- of the "some of my best friends are... " variety. i just have to think- you don;t care how badly accomplished women are treated with bigotry- it's not your issue. got it.

[H2O Man]

227. Perhaps you

are right. Maybe you are 100% right. Maybe a little less than 100%. There is a possibility that you do not see the entire picture. But I have attempted to say that I can respect you and your opinion, and attempted to tell you what my values are. If you still think only you are right, and want to dismiss me, that's fine. It's not a problem for me.

[bettyellen]

230. it's about jettisoning important values in order to make everything a partisan issue.

it's the knee jerk reaction here, and it's sad.
and i think a huge - and interesting part of it is people making all sorts of value judgments on candidates behavior.
both hil and barack are in a bind. barack can't get angry- he's afraid it won't play well.
hil- she has even fewer options.
in general, we are in a sad place when we can't support someone for doing the right thing, instead we have to ascribe all sorts of motives or hidden meanings in order to demonize her. when she reacted to shuster's non- apology, i thought the same thing. he didn;t actually apologize for a sexist remark. to me, it also wasn't enough. perhaps because i notice what hil does, i can actually put it ll in context more naturally. men seem to want to assign her the role of castrating bitch yet again. that's what i see happening.
it's totally knee jerk bs.
and very disappointing to see here.

[mmonk]

33. I'm not convinced there is a "troubling pattern" except in

republican circles. Tweety has been both negative and positive towards her (which is hard for him on the positive since he despises the Clintons). However, I don't see Schuster as a "troubling pattern". I think he said what came to his mind about them using Chelsea, however I disagree with his analysis since she is her daughter and now an adult. You are correct, there are some echos to all this. They should not be forced by intimidation into fakeness as a result of this.

[question everything]

34. No, the troubling pattern is the way MSNBC and Newsweek

are attacking and smearing Clinton while swooning over Obama.

Every single act and word of her come under a magnifying glass, as you are doing so now.

But Obama is getting a clear ride partly, as even his biggest cheerleader, Jonathan Alter, admits, not to be seen as racist comment.

[ruggerson]

37. This is your third post in 2 days comparing Hillary Clinton to Richard Nixon

Apparently you don't monitor MSNBC as much as some of us do or you could never have written this.

The "troubling pattern" is there. It is there every single day, and David Shuster is only the tip of the iceberg.

Many DU'ers, including myself, have been cataloguing it for months now, as has Media Matters.

Are you comparing all of us to Richard Nixon as well?

Publicly confronting a "news" organization, that has been blatantly biased for many months, is hardly an attempt to stifle the first amendment.

It is necessarily exposing partisan advocacy which masquerades (badly) as journalism.

Much like the OP masquerades as someone who likes both candidates.

[bettyellen]

44. i've noticed this too, i voted for obama.. but can hardly stand the biased coverage at MSNBC

anymore. i though tthey were better than that.

very disappointed in this OP. if they were callling obama's wife and kids whores they're be an uproar. same for any republican.
outrage would be expected.
is it only men who get to defend their womenfolk? there's somethign seriously regressive going on here. i am saddened by it.

[chimpymustgo]

234. Bettyellen, I applaud your strong, reasoned arguments in this thread. YOU have carried the day.

It is extremely disturbing that Obama supporters refuse to see the sexist bullshit hurled so freely at Hillary Clinton. She takes offense at her daughter being slammed and is compared to Nixon? Disgraceful!

[burythehatchet]

59. how do you get money to pay bills?

[H2O Man]

61. You are confused.

Hillary Clinton is a US Senator, running for the presidency. You are a participant on an anonymous political discuss forum. See the difference?

[ruggerson]

217. No I think you are confused

you keep changing the goalposts. Okay, let's accept your premise that you are concerned only with public officials strongarming the media. Well, that's precisely what Senator Obama did with Carville and Begala when he forced them off of CNN. You will change the goalposts again and say that both of them support Senator Clinton. But that doesn't hold water, as their involvement with CNN was predicated on full disclosure that they are Clinton advocates, something neither of them have hidden.

The concerns with MSNBC lie with both the dishonest masquerade, well documented on DU and elsewhere, and the abhorrent, daily sexism. She not only had a right to finally speak up, but a moral obligation.

[Whisp]

38. kick for marking. nt

[TacticalPeek]

40. Your troubling pattern

This apparently marks the third time you have cast Hillary in the Nixon role in an OP. I find that beyond ironic since you know as well as I that she worked for the Dems on the House Judiciary Committee that voted to impeach the bastard.

And it is very dishonest to try to weave the misdeeds of Cheney and Libby into an attack on Clinton. Yes, politicians do try to influence the news and its coverage (or non-coverage), many if not most do that. It goes way back to at least around WWI, but the first time I really heard about it was from . . . JFK.

QUESTION: Mr. President, the practice of managed news is attributed to your Administration. Mr. Salinger says he has never had it defined. Would you give us your definition and tell us why you find it necessary to practice it?

THE PRESIDENT: You are charging us with something, Miss Craig, and then you are asking me to define what it is that you are charging me with. I think that you might. Let me just say we have had very limited success in managing the news, if that is what we have been trying to do. Perhaps you would tell us what it is that you object to in our treatment of the news.

QUESTION: Are you asking me, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

QUESTION: Well, I don't believe in managed news at all. I thought we ought to get everything we want.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that you should, too, Miss Craig. I am for that.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Press+Conferences/003POFO5Pressconference50_02211963.htm

I remember that news conference, and we see above how well JFK handled it with his unmatchable wit and skill at extemporaneous speaking. But the reason the question came up is because it was fairly well known that JFK and his AG bro, RFK, would call up journalists and publishers and mau-mau them or soft sell them or curse them out or whatever worked over points of policy and politics fairly routinely trying to shape their coverage - Reston and Alsop for example. This is not denied and is well documented in the plethora of books on the individuals involved.

So you will have to agree, for a politician to set about attempting to directly effect coverage of themselves or their opponents (say, US Steel) is not exceptional, nor necessarily exceptionable. Now I will have to say that I was in high school when I saw that news conference. We discussed it in class and got into the distinction between the business side and journalist side of a publishing enterprise, and how it was the press' responsibility to resist pressure, and the "wall" between the business decisions and the journalism decisions, but I remember having my doubts. I figured that if either the President or his brother were bending my ear it would have an effect, because they were very effective persuaders - see transcript.

All of which is simply to say that this Shuster letter from Hillary to NBC is not the heavy hand of government weighing on a free press. (Sorry, when I typed free press just then I had to laugh). To posit from whole cloth that she is holding FCC appointments over somebody's head is ludicrous and unworthy of you, H2O Man. To blur this incident with Cheney and Scooter is dishonest crap.

Come on - you are better than this.

[bigtree]

48. this greatly disturbs me as well, cast behind a veil of neutrality

I too, believe he's better than this.

[Whisp]

53. ...

good cripes.


:puke:

[H2O Man]

62. Well, if my saying

that I endorse Senator Obama strikes you as violating some sense of neutrality, I think that you are confused. You have taken positions favoring one candidate (actually, more than one, as you have changed). Why would you try to hold me to a diffferent standard than you hold yourself?

[halobeam]

99. double wow.

First, you have to know, you are one the most favorite posters on this forum for the majority of the members here. Please don't take that lightly. You are well liked and I don't know anyone who wouldn't be honored to be.

I ask that you don't take that lightly because your presence here is valued highly, and for a member to have thought you to be neutral/fair in judgment perhaps, is not in anyway anything but complimentary to your being open to seeing both sides more often than most, better than most. It's a fine line that you walk once you reach such a magnanimous, yet tenuous position, and with such strong blowing winds you will choose which side to land, as you must.... but those who had hoped you might land with one foot on one side and another foot on the other side, fall bewildered that you choose one side over the other at all.

It's the pedestal problem, H20 man. It's in the fault of those who put you there; hence your last question and my wow being "doubled".

How can you ask that question? How can you not know that answer? Why would you ask it in the way you did, unless you didn't know.

I'm supposing the poster you responded to, will not be holding you to a different standard than he holds himself to any longer. That is good for him, imo. I am glad.

Sometimes it sucks when the person you look up to and admire, asks you why.. as if you didn't earn such great admiration and as if they didn't earn such humiliation for feeling it.


This has been a hard thread for some long time posters I've noticed, though necessary for everyone equally.

[bigtree]

118. you just told me yesterday that you used Obama because he was a better model

for what you were trying to get across. You expressed to me, at that time, in relation to the concerns I raised about the bald political partisanship of your one-sided post which cast Obama as 'truthful' because he was getting the Youth to vote for him, and Clinton as 'Nixonian' because she wouldn't jump and release her tax returns on Obama's opportunistic demand, that you hadn't yet 'made up your mind' between candidates.

However, I think the entire effort you've made, with the several posts comparing Hillary Clinton to Nixon, is as 'Nixonian as it gets. Each 'Nixon/Hillary' post is thin on evidence of wrongdoing, and heavy on the innuendo. Those posts contain wonderful homilies about truthfulness and integrity, but descend into a self-serving smear of Hillary Clinton. Now, I'm not alone in this observation.

And, I would like to say this. I think you present an honest and fine facade. I have no way of actually knowing WHO you really are. But, I take a backseat to no one here as to my own integrity. I don't think that's an issue her, as some of your defenders on this thread have tried to use to elevate you above the criticism.

So, you go on with your campaigning, your politicking. there's nothing at ALL wrong with politicking. But, I don't believe you still possess the appearance of neutrality or integrity of someone who is above the silly divisive fray here at DU. That saddened me, yesterday. Today, I'm resigned to the reality that you have absolutely no intention of ceasing your innuendo smears of Clinton and your sophomoric pimping of Obama's image.

Fairness is the standard *here, in this post, and in the others where you attempt to equate Hillary Clinton's actions with Nixon's, not some ridiculous expectation of neutrality. And, your word is at issue, as I explained at the beginning of this response.

edit: *

[H2O Man]

120. Not really.

"And, your word is at issue..." Please. You are a good democrat and decnt human being, who makes a wonderful contribution to discussions on this forum. And you are a good sparring partner. We can have fun debating the issues involved in the democratic primary. But one of the things that you should take care not to do is to try to use "control" tactics. When you read some of the other posts on this and my other recent threads, you'll notice a handful of the "I used to respect you," "you are better than this," and similar posts. Think about what these type of statements really represent: put them in the context not of two strangers on an anonymous forum, but of two real people in any human relationship -- family, friend, school, work, etc. If you were a student intern at the clinic where I worked, I'd have you keep track of the people who use those statements -- and you'd soon see that they always are people who feel the need to control and manipulate.

Having you and I debate the primary contest is a good thing. I fully expect that you will come out swinging, and that's a good thing. There are a lot of good, solid reasons for people to support Senator Clinton, and you are a capable advocate. But please do not lose track of the fact that it is the primary that is at issue. This isn't a tickling contest -- if it were, I'd have your friends laughing, rather than wimpering. But let's conduct ourselves in a civilized manner.

[bigtree]

127. I can pull several posts to me, from you, which attempt 'control' tactics as you say

that's just a ridiculous charge. I have an opinion and I took the time to express it here. I did that, because I do respect you. But, I'm not seeing the same figure that the other supporters of yours here on this thread are presenting of you. You have developed your writings into a campaign against Clinton. Fine. Who isn't constructing their arguments around support for some candidate here?

And, get off of that high horse. I'm truly offended by the comparisons you've made between Clinton and Nixon. I don't believe you met even the lowest standard of proving your analogies, in ANY of the hit pieces.

Now, we CAN have sunshine and roses discussions between us, And, yes, we can provide good examples of discourse between us. But, I want you to understand this. I am at odds with the tone and substance of your Nixon comparisons. I did not just skim over them and spout off. I have expressed very specific and detailed objections to your summary comparisons. If they continue, we will continue to be at odds, despite all of the merits that might come from some comity between us.

[H2O Man]

131. Good.

These debates are providing me with great material for other projects with the primary. I always have takken the position that DUers should take the gems from this reservoir of information, and use them in the greater society. So, if I know that the three posts from the past three days upset the opposition here, it's worth using elsewhere.

If others want to take this same information and use it in their quest to support the other candidate, that's cool. I suggest that you not carry a sign that says, "She is NOT like Nixon! It pisses me off when H2O Man suggests otherwise!" But, if you do, I respect your exercising your Amendment #1 rights.

Note: I also have used a couple things from these threads in other ways. Two days ago, one person wrote, "You don't like confrontation, do you?" I had to print that one out. My wife, kids and both of my friends think it is hilarious.

[bigtree]

136. again,

you are truly channeling Nixon here. If your efforts 'upset the opposition' you'll be satisfied to use them elsewhere?

Your Nixon posts are innuendo attacks, one of the lowest forms of politicking. And, now, you suggest that those who object to your summary smears, simply 'carry signs' and deny the charges, like during the 'red scare'.

"I am not now, nor have I ever been, Nixonian?" :eyes:

[EFerrari]

74. What in the world are you talking about?

I've read H2OMan for years now and his position couldn't be more clear.

What is really disturbing about this incident is that in objecting to Shuster's stupid metaphor, the Clinton campaign seems to be making political hay out of the whole incident. That's disturbing. It's like they're making him right in retro. On one hand, they seek to shut Shuster up which is an overreaction and on the other hand, they want to use the incident to their advantage. That's just shabby.

[H2O Man]

78. I think that

they just want to play with their friend Mr. Waterman.

[bigtree]

121. what an arrogant statement

you should know better. I'm not 'playing' any more than YOU are here. You are obviously 'playing politics'. Innuendo politics. This is an old game, poorly played, by you.

[H2O Man]

123. "Arrogant, pompous,

obnoxious, vain, cruel, verbose, a show-off. I have been called all of these. Of course, I am."
-- Howard Cosell

[bigtree]

129. I applied the term to your statements, not to your personality or character

which I really have no way of accurately judging from my position in front of this computer screen. And, you, such a stickler for words.

[H2O Man]

132. I suspect that,

deep down, the Cosell quote almost made you smile. I have no way of knowing, of course. But even though this ain't a tickling contest, I feel justified in quoting Howard.

[bigtree]

198. You can't spell 'hypocrisy' without an 'O'

. . . as I said, poorly played by you, in your 'new' role

Did Obama cross the line as a senator when he criticized the 'media', specifically, Imus?

here's the context of his remarks, from June 2007:

"Obama criticizes Imus but does not flat out say he should be fired. He told NBC's "Hardball" he would not employ Imus. He told CNN's Wolf Blitzer "I believe that NBC should not be having hosts like Don Imus who are making derogatory statements toward women and minorities. I’ve got two young daughters who I hope will be athletes and the notion that somehow they would be degraded and insulted and that that would pass as humor and that NBC would be running that over the public airwaves, I think, is atrocious.''


http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/04/sweet_blog_special_obama_on_cn.html


I'm thinking that, secretly, the title made you smile . . .

[Straight Shooter]

43. I would like for you to change your avatar so there can be no question as to your agenda.

I changed mine so everyone would know exactly where I stand and can judge my posts according to what they may perceive as bias. I respectfully request you change yours also, as you are no longer an objective observer, but for all intents and purposes you have become a clearly subjective participant in the process of attempting to tear Hillary down in order to build your preferred candidate up.

Maybe this is your "sting like a bee" persona, but you are the one who consistently calls for transparency in politics. A person with your influence on this board should not operate with a hidden agenda.

[Whisp]

55. I would like you to change your underwear

you have been really shitting yourself lately.

[TacticalPeek]

64. That is a rude and uncalled for remark, and against the rules of this forum.

3. Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

[H2O Man]

66. This thread has

a series of rude remarks. I think that's okay, though, because we are discussing a serious topic. The comment that you are responding to seems like a tongue-in-cheek joke, made about a person who is attempting to "control" what I say. There is a lot of this on the thread. Even comments like "you are better than this" fall into that mindset. People should feel free to disagree with me, but to try to manipulate with the limp "I used to respect you, but..." crap, or to have people try to tell me what I should think or say, seems rather rude. But we can work through it. These past few threads, though they upset a few, are actually pretty useful.

[TacticalPeek]

75. I don't think it's a case of controlling what you say .

In the case of Straight Shooter, I don't know but some people like to have the cards out on the table. Some people, not necessarily Straight, need to see what side a person is on to be able to interpret what they say through that filter. You must admit, after weeks of trying to steer a calm course through the recently choppy waters, quite admirably IMO, you might still have some readers who thought you were still 'pre-endorsement'. Some part of those will be in other candidates' camps, and have to adjust to new information.

And yes, it was presumptuous of me to make that 'better than this' remark, I apologize. Only you would know if you were better or not. :)

But I do mean to take you on about this Nixon business, because there is simply no basis for it - or at least no basis for claiming it that should not equally be applied to Obama, who also if elected would make FCC appointments etc. And your interpretation of the MSNBC letter, we also disagree there because I don't think it in the least calls for Shuster's firing. Hillary knows how to say 'fire his ass', and this was not that. This is a Dem playing hardball with corporate media, at last.

And I wouldn't know you without the avatar. :hi:

[H2O Man]

80. I may begin

to use this picture, as it reminds me of some of my great writing friends who hope to influence my thinking:



I will say that I think that what has a couple of our friends upset is that I make a pretty convincing case. If I didn't, I think they'd ignore my posts.

[TacticalPeek]

85. Sweet.

Might be tough getting a hurricane in an avatar though, even with modern technology.

[H2O Man]

89. That's Jack Johnson,

who Rubin looked up to as a young fighter.

[TacticalPeek]

91. Oops.

Fooled by the hair.

[H2O Man]

93. Rubin had

a robe made that was like one of Jack Johnson's, too. And that is why the Rube wore his hair as he did.

[Straight Shooter]

96. Fooled me, too.

Come to think of it, I've only read about Hurricane and never seen an image, only Denzel's portrayal of him.

[H2O Man]

119. After the movie,

Rubin told me he never realized how handsome he really was until seeing D on the big screen. And a number of people have told him that he really doesn't look like himself in real life!

[Whisp]

188. what a great response from Rubin! lol.

I knew very little about Rubin except some foggy distance memories and what you have been posting about him here made me go out and rent the movie. It was well done and very glad we got to know him a little bit.

When I did see it, I was also thinking of you H2O Man. ;)

[Straight Shooter]

86. Hurricane as an avatar.

:thumbsup:

[H2O Man]

63. Control issues?

Sorry, what I think and say is not based on your okay.

[Straight Shooter]

67. It isn't a matter of anyone's "okay." You are the one issuing calls for transparency in politics.

One would like to think politics includes Internet forum discussions which center on the subject of presidential candidates. You do not see a "troubling pattern" with the discrepancy between your recent posts and your professed desire for transparency? You will include no disclosure on your sig line, anything to indicate your preferred candidate?

This is what the "inspiring" candidate, the "hope and change" candidate has inspired in you, a casual disregard for that which you insist upon in others.

No wonder Joe Wilson called Obama "unreal."

[H2O Man]

68. You have a

dress code in your mind.

Anyone who has read my posts in support of Senator Barack Obama since Tuesday has probably figured it out. And Ali is a wonderful example of someone who thought for himself, even if it upset others.

[Straight Shooter]

77. Let me channel Chris Matthews as you do: Ha!

I have not read all your posts, some of them drop off, I'm sure, before I enter the forum. I honestly could not figure out why you were leaning so heavily on Hillary. That you would publish opinions in which you consider her to be cut from the same cloth as Nixon is not in line with your usual measured way of getting your point across. That is why I requested, (not demanded), disclosure. When you respond with things like "control issues" and "You have a dress code in mind," I don't know quite what to make of it.

We admire many of the same people. So I wish you peace, and perhaps your judgment of Obama's character will prove to be correct. For the sake of this nation and the world, let it be so.

[EFerrari]

73. That neutral observer, Joe Wilson?

Good grief.

[Straight Shooter]

79. You have your heros. I have mine.

Very few would have gone against the bush administration, especially Cheney, as Joe Wilson did. Wilson could have kept quiet and no one would have been the wiser.

Ironic that he was a big hero on DU not too many years ago, and now to some his opinion is lightly dismissed. It makes me wonder why people even bother to take risks anymore.

[H2O Man]

81. I disagree.

I think as highly of Joe Wilson today as I did before he endorsed Clinton. And I was fully aware that she had been supportive of the Wilsons. His endorsement is an important one. I just think that Obama has more potential to advance democracy in the United States, and to improve the damage the Bush administration has done.

If Clinton wins the nomination, I'll work to support her election. And, to be frank, I think I can do a much better job than a lot of the vocal Clinton supporters on DU.

[Straight Shooter]

83. I did say, "to some."

Not all members, but some of them. It surprises me that there are more than a few who are now hostile to him, as evidenced by a recent thread here on DU which highlighted his endorsement of Hillary Clinton.

And I hope you weren't taking a backhanded swipe at me with your last remark, because it would be seemingly out of character for you to take things personally on an anonymous discussion board. My favorite to promote Hillary Clinton would be maddiejoan, which maddiejoan is doing very well at it and keeping everyone smiling.

[H2O Man]

87. No.

I hadn't been thinking of you when I wrote that.

Actually, I enjoy taking a whack at a hornets' nest on GU every now and then. I think that I've had a few good threads, which have sparked some good discussion/debate on the Clinton vs Obama contest. It allows me a chance to test out a few ideas that I will use elsewhere. A couple people have taken offense to that, which I find encouraging. Like Ricky Hatton said, this ain't a tickling contest.

[Straight Shooter]

101. Didn't think so.

Please don't mention hornets. Having disturbed a nest last summer, I learned how fast I can run.

I enjoy honest disagreements. I still take issue with you making side-by-side comparisons of Hillary to Nixon. I believe I would have taken the same position of defending Hillary back when I supported Dodd, and then when I wavered between Edwards and Clinton.

[mtnsnake]

137. You don't think too highly of yourself, do you.

If Clinton wins the nomination, I'll work to support her election. And, to be frank, I think I can do a much better job than a lot of the vocal Clinton supporters on DU

:thumbsdown:

[H2O Man]

140. No.

I don't.

[ClericJohnPreston]

255. That was

unconvincing!

[EFerrari]

88. That's beside the point. He's endorsed Hillary and is doing a good job

of acting in support of her campaign.

[Straight Shooter]

94. To me, that is the point. I respect his opinion.

I don't know why you would say "good grief" because he endorses Hillary Clinton.

Colin Powell was in the news, CNN Politicalticker if you want to check it out, as saying he might endorse a Democrat or an Indi, and then he went on to praise Obama. Now, to that, I would say "good grief." To a Lieberman endorsement, I would say, "good grief." But not Joe Wilson, and not some of Obama's endorsements which have come his way.

McClurkin's de facto endorsement. MAJOR "good grief." I will never be able to accept that.

[mtnsnake]

139. I'm with you

It's amazing how only on DU someone can go from being a hero to practically being a goat only because they pick Hillary to support in the primaries.

How soon they all forget...

[Binka]

124. What an incredibly immature and ridiculous post

Demanding that one change his or her avatar? :wtf: You really are out of your fucking mind. Who cares what you did. Welcome to ignore. What garbage.

[Straight Shooter]

183. You forget how I supported you when Ben was hurt and offered you words of comfort.

You can't read this, but I made no "demand." It was a request for transparency, for disclosure.

Thank you for your transparency.

[Whisp]

191. Binka, he's trying to do the 'superdelegate' thing.

;)
calling in favours and stuff.
reminder of all the good deeds.

[Straight Shooter]

197. H20 Man and I have settled our differences.

You are insinuating yourself for reasons that have nothing to do with the IP.

[Whisp]

205. just teasing.

i often miss using the smiley icon, which can really get me misunderstood.
sorry about the underwear thing - meant it, but not as harsh as it sounds.

:D

[mtnsnake]

277. Are you that belligerent in real life?

Your post has got to be one of the most mean spirited responses I've ever seen one poster make to another, especially when that someone was polite and tactful in their request, as Straight Shooter was.

You would be far better off putting yourself on ignore than anyone else. Hope that helps...

[candice]

46. The main problem is the consolidation of media into the hands of a few companies....

...check out what General Electric owns (NBC, MSNBC, all the NBC network stations, Bravo, Telemundo) Wikipedia has a list.

Then there is Disney...Disney, ABC, ESPN.

and Time-Warner: Time-Warner cable, HBO, Turner Broadcasing.

A democracy needs to be able to hear many voices, not just the ones that are keeping our eyes for the next drug commercial and benefit by pushing the candidate who will not bust them up (any Republican).

Any kind of real medical care for everyone would diminish the drug companies' profits.

Also, why should our election process fill the coffers of corporations that own the TV stations? We need them to donate some free air time (on the "people's airwaves") for substantial policy advertisements for viable candidates, as is the case in Great Britain.

A people get the government they deserve. (Thomas Jefferson said that)

We have the best government money can buy. (Gore Vidal said that)

Let's remove the profit from government. (I say that)

[AtomicKitten]

52. I too bristle when Democrats start acting like the GOP horde

that mass emails complaints and tries to shut down everything they don't like. That sense of entitlement makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

Shuster could have phrased his legitimate comment better, but he has been a pretty good reporter to date and I believe the suspension should suffice.

[dsc]

54. All I can say is about fucking time

It is long past time that the press pay a penalty for disparaging our candidates consistently. For this reason alone, Hillary should be our nominee.

[Andromeda]

69. If you think Hillary has any power

at all with the media you must have been living in a cave the past few years. It's laughable you would describe it that way since Hillary has been the media's favorite target for the past 8 years.

Because Hillary objecting to Schuster's choice of words describing Chelsea's campaigning for her mother hardly illustrates a concerted attempt to "control the media." If somebody had said something like that about one of my daughters I would be pissed off and probably talk face to face with the ugly-ass prick that made the comment.

Hillary has a legitimate beef and I'm surprised she hasn't spoken out before.

[H2O Man]

71. Yes.

You are right -- I've been living in a cave for decades. My name is Enkidu, and hence the message I bring from that world is so troubling to some here.

Hillary Clinton has indeed been a target of unfair media coverage since 1992, at least. And what David Shuster said was wrong and offensive. If Bill and Hillary Clinton had confronted Shuster face-to-face, I'd think that would be fine. I think there is a significant difference between that, and what has happened.

[Garbo 2004]

98. It seemed to be a shot across the bow but to what purpose?

If it was simply only about Shuster and "civil discourse" in the media, Hillary would have writer's cramp just from letters to Murdoch and Roger Ailes whose network certainly has had a more egregious history. (And CNN still has Glenn Beck on its roster.)

The campaign seized on the opportunity with such force it made me wonder. And having worked around politicians I learned long ago to not simply accept things at face value.

MSNBC's viewership is not large by broadcast standards or even cable. But it is a part of a larger broadcast network.

We've seen how CBS shied back and groveled to the White House after "Rathergate." They had a Niger piece that was supposed to run before the 2004 election and they pulled it. As I recall CBS, Time mag and the NYT all withheld stories not favorable to the Administration since they said they "didn't want to influence" the outcome.

Perhaps I'm just donning a tin foil hat, but I wonder if this shot across the bow may not be so much about Shuster and MSNBC's alleged "pattern of behavior" but instead perhaps be a manner of innoculation against substantive future stories that might be unfavorable to the Clintons.

[Straight Shooter]

103. "a manner of innoculation against substantive future stories that might be unfavorable"

Your presentation and your conclusion are excellent and on point. I commend you. :thumbsup:

Hillary has demonstrated foresight before. It could be she is simply stomping out the campfire before it threatens to burn down the forest.

[goodgd_yall]

106. Hillary hasn't spoken out before

Which just goes to show she is not apt to put a chill on what passes for "political discourse" on MSNBC and other media outlets. The fact that the comment reflected on her daughter and in such a despicable way (granted, the term "pimping" just as "bitch," has become, regrettably, a common and even acceptable word within a certain generation; nevertheless, discretion in its use is expected of a professional journalist/analyst) motivated Hillary to act assertively toward MSNBC.

[truedelphi]

236. One comment here:

If Senator Clinton wants my vote then she has to be effective.

Now in certain times and places, especially something like the Chelsea remark, she is definitely doing the appropriate thing to get any moron out there that talks about a candidate's daughter in that manner.

But the other thing is, Hillary whines far too much.

She wants respect but imho she doesn't wanna earn it.

She proposed a National Health Plan in the 1990's and it got no where, in part because the Repugs got together and laced up some very scary commercials.

So why didn't Hillary persuade her buddies at the DLC to lace up some commericals that would efffectively counter attack the Repugs' Claims?

Is she experienced and effective or experienced and a victim?

[KoKo]

82. I disagree

with your comparing Hillary's comments to a "risk to the First Amendment," though, H20Man...

MSNBC dedicated their prime time nightly viewing the Clinton hatred from his second term on. They have never covered the Bush Families Crimes and the antics of the "twins" and the Bush brothers scrapes with unseemly business ventures. There's a code of silence around the Bush/Cheney's as you know.

I think Hillary had every right to ask for an apology from Schuster and for stern measures to be taken. I think her request to fire him went a bit far, but given the seriousness of his comments and that he had already had to apologize just six months before for going after a female US House Member with a Gotcha question when he didn't even have his facts straight means that Shuster has stepped over a line twice. In the "outside world" when an employee has to be warned twice about behavior within six months it usually means stern measures are in order. So, I don't see this as Hillary being like Nixon and that she has some sinister desire to subvert the First Amendment. If we had strong libel laws in this country Clintons could have sued MSNBC for defamation of character with the witch hunt they did on them.

Anyway, the comment was offensive to any female and to any Mother and father to see her daughter being accused of whoring for her "pimp parents." Don Imus was fired for calling the Young Women of the Rutger's Basketball team..."nappy headed ho's." (It seems MSNBC doesn't have a policy on race or gender bashing. Perhaps they need to institute some "diversity training" which most of the Fortune 500 Companies instituted way back during Reagan's Administration. Human Resources departments required management to attend these workshops. Chris Matthews has made sexual innuendo his calling card on his show when he isn't making insinuating remarks about the Clintons. Enough of this!

I admire Hillary for standing up to them and for Obama calling for Carville and Begalla to be suspended from doing political analysis on CNN because they've consulted for Hillary.

Our Democrats are cowering in their bunkers worrying about what the bad corporate media will do and say about them if they take action. Just this week John Conyers said that impeachment wouldn't be allowed because of the media.

I'm proud that both Obama and Hillary are going after the MSM. It's time someone did since the feckless Democratic Congress refuses to reign in the FCC after all their promises.

Anyway, I respect your opinion, my friend...but I do disagree with you on this.

Here's a thread I posted today about what a TPM Viewer said to Josh about the Chelsea comment and a comment by Atrios at Eschaton which both make interesting points about the deeper significance of what Schusters said.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2839721&mesg_id=2839721


Peace...:hi:

[H2O Man]

92. The media is

dismal. I far prefer what we used to call the underground press. And there have been numerous times when I've encouraged DUers to exercise their Amendment #1 muscles by writing LTTE, etc.

However, I do not think government officials attempting to control the media helps to insure a better press, much less protects our freedoms as defined by that Bill of Rights.

[usregimechange]

95. She is after the "rescuer vote," see my comments on this frm earlier today:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4490510

[H2O Man]

122. Very interesting.

You were right on target.

[kristopher]

97. Consider Obama's sweep tonight as possibly her true motive

She desperately needs to change the subject, so she chooses to play the victim.... Again.

[Tatiana]

100. The responses to this post and the framing of the arguments have made for interesting reading. n/t

[Straight Shooter]

102. Props to H20 Man for keeping up.

I've been on threads where I've had several people responding to me at once, all with different viewpoints, some of them not friendly to my cause. It's amazing how the tentacles branch out and form little octipi all their own, with even more tentacles to attend to.

H20 Man is a Baby Boomer, too, so extra props are due. It's just harder for us old folk to keep up. :P

[Tatiana]

189. Hey, we can all learn a thing or ten from the boomers.

I think I'm generation X or Y. I forget which letter...

[barbtries]

107. what first amendment?

constitution, anyone? this administration has trashed it all.

[robbedvoter]

108. You guys did see the**** debunking**** of the "retaliation" BS, reight? RIGHT?

It's right here:
****

Clinton Campaign Not Looking for Shuster to Be Fired, After All

*******
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4510989

[Cooley Hurd]

110. After reading some of the comments on this thread, what troubles me is...

...that supporters of Senator Clinton are reading things into the OP that JUST aren't there.

Great OP, H2O Man. :thumbsup:

[H2O Man]

117. When my friend Dick Gregory

spoke in Selma, many years ago, he addressed this type of thing. He said that if he had a book in his hand, and someone insisted it was a bike, that he still had a book in his hand. The bike only exists between the other fellow's ears.

[fascisthunter]

233. This is What I Noticed too

fascinating thread

[robbedvoter]

116. During Nixon - media was investigating. Now, propagandizing - GE that is

Are you saying Clinton has the power to control corporate media? Where have you been the last 20 years? What utter BS!
If this were Nixon time, W would have been out on his ass - instead of praised by your darlingg mmedia as Fearless leader. Shame on you ! You should know better!

[Evergreen Emerald]

128. I would have thought that through-the-looking-glass logic would end

when the neo-cons lost power. They would do the same thing: they suggested that to make a reporter disclose illegal government activity is interfering with the free press. This argument is akin to that, and in this topsy-turvy world where winning at all costs is the objective, many on this board are cheering this argument.

Schuster used his position to attack Clinton because he was PISSED OFF THAT SHE WOULD NOT GIVE AN INTERVIEW. So, that power that we give him, was abused by him.

Further--when the MSM is constantly attacking a democratic candidate--we USED to stand up for them. We never made the argument, that the free press can attack anyone at will no matter how dishonest and unfair. We have better standards in America.

I also notice the continued double standard by Obama supporters: When Obama does it, that is ok. When Clinton does it, she is evil and the world will end.

Nixon tried to keep the press from disclosing the truth. Clinton and the democrats are trying to GET the media to disclose the truth.

[H2O Man]

134. I think that

those DUers who contacted MSNBC to express outrage at David Shuster's comments were doing the right thing. I trust that the majority of people here have the intellectual capacity to distinguish between average citizens expressing their opinion to and through the media, and any politician attempting to silence the media.

[Evergreen Emerald]

144. your post does not suggest that.

Your post suggests that a politician cannot say: Wait a fu*in minute. You are off base and over the line.

We applauded Bill Clinton when he did it to FoxNews. We should be applauding Hillary Clinton today. But, unfortunately, we are continuing the divisive mindset that the neo-cons created. Us versus them. The democratic party is divided and many do not care if sexist slurs are used, as long as their candidate is the beneficiary.

But to suggest that Clinton is undemocratic and attempting to hide things in Nixonian fashion because she pointed out the distortion and lies is through-the-looking-glass.

[H2O Man]

148. Well, I guess that

is something that we see very differently. I think that you have a right to your opinion, and encourage you to express it. I also will exercise my right to express my beliefs. If some people don't like that, they own the problem.

[Little Star]

256. Again, what about Obama calling CNN on Begala & Carvel?

I never heard you explain the difference between average citizens expressing their opinion to and through the media, and any politician attempting to silence the media? Just asking, why only about Clinton sticking up for herself and her daughter?

[NashVegas]

135. The Double Standard Is Enraging - Even From You

When I consider how this is being treated by a portion of the DU population, I'm tempted to look back in GD and do a search and compare to see who thinks Hillary has stepped over a line now, yet vocally supported the contingent that wanted Don Imus fired - no hinting around about it - for "nappy headed hos." Those defending Imus on 1st Amendment were a minority who needed thick skin.

Shuster's comment was befitting a morning zoo, not an allegedly serious broadcast. How can anyone compare the Watergate journalists who dug in, in spite of the heat, to a slang term comparing the selling out of one's character to prostitution? How can anyone compare the bravery of those who dug in their heels against the Cheney onslaught to Shuster's comment that couldn't be defended?

For the sake of being hip and clever, Shuster jeopardized MSNBC's coverage and that's reason enough for the suspension. Considering what happened to Imus, considering that C & B were dropped per Obama's request, Hillary was well within reason to ask MSNBC to pony up some goods.

I want to reiterate that: the letter doesn't demand his head, it asks MSNBC to pony up. "Fire him," and an implied request for a 'gimme' (which is how I read the note) are not the same thing.


Finally:

HOW MANY DUers CHEERED AT THE DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGNERS' BOYCOTT OF FOX?

You can't have it both ways.

[H2O Man]

141. A simple concept:

I think that DUers who contacted MSNBC to express outrage at David's comments were doing a good thing; I am uncomfortable when politicians attempt to use the power of their office to silence the media.

[mtnsnake]

145. So you're saying she's trying to silence the media? Gimme a break

The way most people would look at it is that she's trying to get the media to play fair, not silence tham.

[H2O Man]

149. The way that

most people who think like you would; the way that most people who think like me wouldn't.

[mtnsnake]

152. No, it has nothing to do with "the way most people who think"

Let's be realistic and quit with the little mind games. It has much more to do with which candidate you're supporting, period. Maybe not for you it doesn't, but don't give me that "most people" nonsense.

[H2O Man]

157. Gracious!

You used the "most people think" bit first. Then I used it, and you call it "nonsense." At least we agree on that.

[mtnsnake]

163. You're the one who turned it into a contest, not me

I said "the way most people look at it"

You turned it into a *you vs me* thing for whatever reason God only knows.

[H2O Man]

172. I had

noticed that you and I were conversing, and had different opinions.

[NashVegas]

146. Aye, It Is Indeed, Simple

Your bias blinds you to double standards.

[H2O Man]

150. The great political

philosopher Confusius was asked what he would do if he had political power? He answered, "Insist that words be used correctly." Your incorrect use of the word "bias" limits your ability to express yourself in a meaningful way. What I expressed is my opinion, which happens to be different from yours.

[NashVegas]

171. Confucius Didn't Speak French

Non-sequiturs are easy.

Seeing past one's own preferences / loyalties to discover you're not shitting apple butter, either, that's a little hard sometimes.

[H2O Man]

174. Tao Te Ching

Knowing ignorance is strength;
Ignoring knowledge is sickness.
-- Lao Tse

(Good on toast!)

[KoKo]

158. Agree...it would be interesting to look back at that incident compared to now.n/t

[mtnsnake]

143. Hillary would be crazy if she DIDN'T serve notice to a media that's clearly slanted against her

and clearly out to get her.

Thank goodness one of our candidates knows how to fight and stick up for themselves. If and when she makes it to the general election, everyone will be thanking their lucky stars that we'll have someone on the campaign trail who won't go silent when the media is out to get them.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

151. I'm surprised to see this level of obtuseness from you. n/t

[H2O Man]

155. Thank you.

Being taken for granted is no fun at all. Taking a swing at the hornets' nest is fun.

Even if you disagree 110% with the opinion expressed in the OP, I would hope that you could find some value in parts of the discussion/debate that resulted. Even if it is just thinking, "Yes! I'm glad that ______ smacked that darned H2O Man!" -- then the thread has served some purpose. (grin)

[Tennessee Gal]

153. H2O Man: Regarding a troubling pattern, I suggest you read this.

The mess at MSNBC

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802080011?f=h_latest

And especially this.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802080012?f=h_top

[H2O Man]

159. Thank you.

I am aware of the problems with MSNBC. I think that they need to be addressed. I just have a concern about politicians using the power of their office to try to influence the media. I think that the Founding Fathers had a similar concern.

[Tennessee Gal]

162. I don't see it as trying to influence the media purely for the sake of the Clinton campaign.

Based on the information provided, there is more to it than that. I noticed it long before the Schuster comment. This is not just about Hillary. She just happened to have a legitimate reason to bring it to their attention.

[H2O Man]

175. Frequently

things have both a good and bad potential. Though I am confident that I am right, I can also appreciate that you are just as right in your belief. And I suspect that it is the fact that you are confident that you are indeed correct, that allows you to disagree with me in a most agreeable manner. I do thank you for that.

[Tennessee Gal]

180. Okay. Am I understanding you correctly?

Are you able to read all the examples provided of problematic comments made on MSNBC and not see that this just might possibly be something that should be addressed?

Is it just the fact that it is Hillary bringing it to their attention that is bothering you?

[H2O Man]

186. I think that

the problems with MSNBC, in terms of the sexism, are real, and should absolutely be confronted. I think that DUers and other citizens/viewers should absolutely be contacting MSNBC, and demanding that they address the problem.

Over the years at DU, I have often advocated and participated in efforts to lobby the corporate media on what I recognize as important issues. The handful of DUers who actually know me (not just as an anonymous poster on this forum) think it is curious that people are having difficulty recognizing where I stand on this issue. I find that curious, as well.

Because I like Chris Matthews and David Shuster does not mean that I am going to ignore what I see as unacceptable behavior.

I do have concerns when any politician -- democrat or republican -- moves into what I believe is a grey area, and pose a potential threat to Amendment #1. Even if it is a politician I like, I am not going to ignore behavior that I think poses a risk to a free press.

There is a difference between a citizen confronting a journalist (including a parent who happpens to be a politician), and a politician using the power of their office to confront a journalist. I know that many people here do not agree with me. But I am confident that, in time, many will.

[Tennessee Gal]

199. Sorry, I just don't see this as an attempt to influence the coverage

of Clinton. If that were the case, I would be agreeing with you.

I see this as Hillary bringing to the attention of MSNBC a pattern of behavior. There is obviously a history on MSNBC as represented by the links I posted.

If you think this is an attempt by Clinton to influence the coverage of her, perhaps you can explain and give some examples.

[KoKo]

222. Citizens don't have power to confront the Corporate Owned Media anymore...

If that was so the thousands of us who have been e-mailing and phone calling to complain since the old action alerts by the sadly missed "Media Whores Online" way back in 2002 (before Media Matters) would have gotten some action. Since that time no matter how massive our campaigns have been...nothing changes. There was even a website up around the PlameGate hearings devoted to trying to get Matthews to change his own air trashing of Democrats, Females and his constant sexual innuendo about both Repug and Dem Men. It was started by FireDog Lake folks and helped by others like Diby's website. It cataloged all of Matthews worst statements and we all made a special effort to contact him. I can't count how many times in the last 7 years I've sent "polite" e-mails to MSNBC about Carlson's and Tweety's comments. Nothing has changed...and its' gotten worse.

What recourse to citizens have other than to peitition our representatives? So this is why I can't understand why you think that government doesn't have a role in this? It's "Hate Speech" which debases our society. The Civil Rights and Womens movement understood how words can harm and inflame situations.
I think that's the bigger issue, here, aside from the fact that Hillary and Bill's daughter was signaled out over other Candidate children for the vile comment. I was glad to see Hillary stand up and hope that other politicians will stand up as Obama did when CNN was still using Hillary advisors Begalla and Carville for political commentary.

[H2O Man]

228. Sure they do. n/t

[Tennessee Gal]

184. You don't know me and I don't know you.

I have long respected the posts you make here.

I can argue with the best of them and will at times.

But I much prefer rational discussions.

By the way, I wrote columns for Buzzflash during the early years of the Bush administration.

[NashVegas]

177. TG, It's Beyond That

H20 Man is basically saying that Hillary, herself, should not be the one to fight this fight. Rather, she's supposed to have a Champion.

At least, that's my reading.

[Tennessee Gal]

181. That is what I am trying to understand.

[KoKo]

220. H2O Man.....Clinton didn't threaten FCC Action to revoke their liscence..

she urged them to reconsider their policies in very strong language. She has no power to do anything about them. FCC has a Repug Majority.

[NashVegas]

241. While Obama Endorser Kerry Threatened The NFL w/Hearings - Over a Football Game

Remember that? He threatened the NFL with legislative hearings over ppv channels if they wouldn't broadcast the Patriots game on ... NBC.

Interesting, that.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

160. Thanks for the links, TG

[Cameron27]

170. Thanks Tennessee Gal,

the pattern MSNBC has established has been grossly sexist and biased throughout this primary, it's not just Schuster's comment that Clinton was talking about.

[KoKo]

219. "Scarborough to Brzezinski" "Don't make me backhand you!"

rborough to Brzezinski on Morning Joe: "on't make me backhand you"

I wonder how the MSNBC apologist would explain away that comment from a former House Representative? "Don't make me backhand you." I guess the apologists would say he was referring to a "tennis game" they had scheduled for later in the day. :eyes: "Don't let me backhand you" on a show that's known for it cutesy and sometimes subtle sexual innuendo game playing...I think the implication to the "macho males" they are trying to cultivate from the Old Imus days could easily be interpreted as..."bitch...don't force me to smack you in the mouth." Back to the neanderthal days? Maybe next he'll grab her by the hair and push her face in the desk and they'll all crack up over that one...including Mika who seems to play the female victim role with the proper "humorous submission."


--------------------------------------------

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801300002

On the January 30 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough said to co-host Mika Brzezinski, "Mika, don't make me backhand you." Scarborough made the comment after telling CNBC chief political correspondent John Harwood: "I, actually -- I don't endorse anybody because, as you know, I'm a journalist," prompting Brzezinski to laugh. Brzezinski responded to Scarborough's "backhand" remark: "Oh, lord."

All-male Morning Joe panel laughed as Barnicle compared Clinton to "everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801230004

Discussing the most recent Democratic presidential candidates debate on Morning Joe, political and social commentator Mike Barnicle said Sen. Hillary Clinton "look like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court," eliciting laughter from the all-male panel that featured MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, Willie Geist, and David Shuster.

[ClericJohnPreston]

165. I noticed

you weren't too upset when the media IGNORED, purposefully, the candidacy of John Edwards. The only time you notice it, is the hypocritical nexus you paint between Hillary Clinton and Richard Nixon. You ignore the Forest for the trees.

I love MSNBC and Shuster. Unfortunately, they have become heavy-handed boosters of only ONE candidate...Obama. Of course, you don't comment on that REALITY, only the tangential whining about Hillary returning fire being Nixon-like.

There should be a corollary to Godwin's Law, substituting NIXON. I'll call it Cleric's Law. You violated it, in an incredible twist and spin of reality, for an absurd observation.

Obama is getting a free pass. Hillary is constanly slammed. That is REALITY. Anything else is yet another Obamite affront to logic, TRUTH, and facts.

[H2O Man]

176. How silly.

Had John Edwards stayed in the contest, I would have voted for him on Super Tuesday. You do not have a clue what you are talking about. However, I will give you credit for being consistent.

[ClericJohnPreston]

185. You

are a complete liar, already called out for your lack of "neutrality". Everything I have ever seen you write as an OP, has been a paean to Obama. Every post you make in someone else's thread, you slam with a one or two word, "silly" or "thats stupid".

Anyone who CONSISTENTLY denigrates the opinions of others, while protesting their own "impartiality", should look a little deeper into that mirror you avoid.

I don't have a clue? Methinks thou doth protest too much, Waterman.

[H2O Man]

187. Gosh!

I endorsed Obama last Tuesday. I have posted pro-Obama threads every day since. You are remarkable in your ability to see beneath the surface.

[ClericJohnPreston]

192. You are as transparent as

WATER, man. That requires none of my remarkable skills to see.

Ever since I arrived on these shores a little more than a month ago, you have appeared in Obama's ledger. Post after post after post. Just because you have a conveniently short memory, I don't.

As I said, and stand by, methinks thou doth protest too much.

[H2O Man]

195. I'm not protesting.

I'm laughing at you. Thanks for the giggle.

[ClericJohnPreston]

202. Dear Gawd Waterman

If you could only see how small you look, while attempting to live up to your own comic book hero level view of yourself.

Vanity is one thing. Truth is another. You are no Ali, and your rope a dope is backfiring on you. Your logic and false bravado are what is laughable, and what you should be laughing at.

I find you....inconsequential...and TRANSARENT as water, man.

[Alamom]

166. Very troubling....Obama 84% positive press. Hillary 51% positive press

Source:

http://www.cmpa.com/election%20news%202_1_08.htm
CENTER FOR MEDIA AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Since mid-December, when the presidential candidates turned their full attention to the Iowa caucuses, Sen. Barack Obama has led the race for good press and Sen. Hillary Clinton has lagged the farthest behind. From Dec 16 through Jan 27 five out of six on-air evaluations of Obama (84%) have been favorable, compared to a bare majority (51%) of evaluations of Mrs. Clinton.


I think if the Clintons had any control over the press, they would have used it leading up to ST....not wait until her family is insulted. There is a pattern.....






CMPA has monitored every presidential election since 1988 using the same methodology, in which trained coders tally all mentions of candidates and issues and all evaluations of candidates. We report the evaluations by non-partisan sources, excluding comments by the candidates and campaigns about each other, because research shows that non-partisan sources have the most influence on public opinion, and they are also more subject to the discretion of reporters.

[Tennessee Gal]

168. Excellent point!

[HeraldSquare212]

210. She chose a boring story line and he chose an exciting one.

Which do you think media is going to cover more? I don't know how that group decides favorable or unfavorable, but Obama is the story because he took something that everyone thought was a done deal and made it into a real race.

[kelligesq]

167. I DISAGREE

Doubtful the First Amendment when written 200 + hundred years ago in their wildest imagination never took into account the language used today.

Matthews "pattern" has been evident for a number of years with regard to Hillary Clinton, (and before people start flaming Hillbot, she is not my candidate).

What place does personal physical attacks about a person's skin, weight, and other physical attributes have to do with their ability to lead a country?

Matthews constant harping on HRC's voice, "terrible voice" "shrill" "like chalk on a blackboard" have to do with knowledge and abilities ?

What does Gore's weight, another of Matthews constant harping and jokes have to
do with his abilities?

And yet did you ever hear him comment once on a republican's physical attributes
negatively? On Bay Buchanan's wild hair? On her brother's shrill voice?
I did not.

First Amendment? Perhaps he has the right to say these things - privately- but not on a news broadcast.

[H2O Man]

178. Ha!

I'm sure that the Founding Fathers were fully aware that some journalists would be obnoxious, wrong, and pains in the neck. The idea of the Bill of Rights is not to protect only those who are popular.

[kelligesq]

221. poor resonse. you didnt answer personal physical attacks place in politics or media

[KoKo]

224. The Founding Fathers conceived their would be an "Independent Press" ...not one

controlled by the King of England and various Merchant Interests who at the time worked hard to thwart the American Revolutionarys. Media Consolidation has made the Five Controlling interests a pipeline for their Government Contract work for the Pentagon and Global Exploitation. Then there's Disney's control for entertainment purposes, Time-Warner for Entertainment, Books, Publishing, Education and Cable Control. Viacom...more entertainment and diversified interests in bundling. CNN is a known tool for Pentagon Propaganda.

This is not what the Founding Fathers who knew about the Kings Domination and the overwhelming power of the Hudson-Bay Company. They envisioned an independent press with thousands of citizen journalists involved in pamphleteering and small printing presses in the hills and hollers across America. That was very idealistic of them... but the first Amendment did try to address that. With five media conglomerates (one involved in defense contracts) running the media where most people get their news from....this is no longer "free speech of the citizens" but "free speech" of the Corporate Entertainment and Military/Industrial complex.

That is the deeper issues. They can say what THEY WANT TO....but the average citizen can only contact them. There is no longer a need for the vast Corporate McMedia to listen to those who complain to them...because they have usurped the power of the First Amendment for their use...and their use alone.

I think that's the deeper issue we forget.

[Triana]

169. The only "troubling pattern" I see is the "troubling pattern" of the amount of sexism...

...which is thought acceptable in this country. Whereas racism is not (to such a degree).

The MEDIA and American people at large are AFRAID of being labelled racist and they therefore largely avoid making derogatory comments referring to Obama's (or anyone's) race and they avoid openly showing a black or any man the amount of DISRESPECT and hostility they would easily and openly show to a woman in a political race.

NO ONE is afraid to make derogatory SEXIST remarks or of being labelled (or BEING) SEXIST, hostile, or disrespectful of a woman running for office. THAT seems JUST FINE to most people.

THAT is the "troubling pattern" I see and I HOPE HILLARY DOES ADDRESS IT. What Hillary has had to endure in her career and her LIFE is REPRESENTATIVE of what MOST WOMEN in this country have had to endure in their careers and lives. Many women VOTE FOR HER because they can RELATE to that.

WE ALL NEED TO make SEXISM as unacceptable as RACISM is. BOTH ought to be TOTALLY unacceptable.

I won't hold my breath waiting for THAT to happen. Pfffft!

Welcome to the US of Arse, The Morally Bankrupt Nation (no CHANGE here, just move along)

[foerschie]

173. So how do you know

That the execs at MSNBC and Matthew's haven't given in to the White House and are now smearing Hillary at their will? How would you possibly know what has motivated MSNBC? I think the simple answer is ratings but if you want to turn it into something bad about Clinton, go for it.

[H2O Man]

179. Thank you.

I'm glad that I have your permission.

[ClericJohnPreston]

193. Typical

Waterman condescending two word rebuke.

[HeraldSquare212]

200. The Clinton campaign intially kept Chelsea out of the race

Then, on the day Oprah was to campaign for Obama in Iowa, they brought her to Iowa, but she just stood on the stage and did not speak at all. The story was, they wanted to protect her and didn't think she should be campaigning. Then, when they lost Iowa, she began appearing by herself at campaign events and speaking to crowds.

So: after Iowa, the Clinton campaign used Chelsea in a way they had considered inappropriate, because they needed her to win.

[durrrty libby]

201. So bottom line ....Outright blatant misogyny = Free Speech

The slightest perception, no matter how convoluted, of a so-called "code" word =racism


Yah, that's the ticket

And if Shuster had said that Michelle Obama was being "pimped out"?

The cries of racism would be deafening


The double standards here are laughable. As you are so fond of saying....."Clown" :dunce:

[ClericJohnPreston]

204. BINGO

"CLOWN". :dunce:

[formernaderite]

203. does anyone remember during the clinton era a publication

put together by bill's admin...in which it sought to shut down internet bloggers(albeit right wing) who were writing and publishing info they didn't like? At the time I thought it was an overreaction on their part, and of course I applauded the effort out of bias. It was something like the conspiracy stream of something or other. Maybe I'll google it later.
Anyway, my point being....they're old hands at forming the story, and dismissing other opinions.

[eleny]

207. My prediction

If Clinton wins the nomination I think Schuster will be history.
If Obama wins, they'll bring him back slowly. He'll start pillorying the Republican nominee and Dems will forgive him in the frenzy to win the election.

As for controlling the press, it's key to anyone in power. So I'm not surprised that Clinton made the remark. But should she keep it up after Schuster was banished, her campaign deserves to be inundated with reminders of what her husband did for media consolidation. Her bona fides aren't very strong in that regard. She's gotten her 10 pounds of flesh, Schuster's ass, and that's enough.

[KoKo]

226. I will never forgive Bill Clinton for signing the Media Consolidation Act...

Although, I have no knowlege that Hillary agreed with him on this. But, that bill has come back to bite them in the ass. Maybe they have learned from their mistakes. Maybe Hillary wasn't involved. I doubt they are lockstep on every issue. But, I have no idea whether Obama would do anything to overturn that bill. I have no idea where he stands.

What Shuster said and what MSNBC's patter of behavior is should be the issue here. It was a bad bill and the consequences have been a disaster for our Democracy and our Election process. I hope whichever one is elected will listen to citizens who are working to bring back some form of the Fairness Doctrine. I know it's not popular here...but the pendulum has swung so far that there needs to be a swing back to some middle ground. The language we use against each other is not elevating our society. Name calling and innuendo of the vilest kind puts us in the gutter and doesn't help discussion of our most important issues. The internet has freed up what we all say...as we would gossip amongst sometimes in venting where we say things that we would never have uttered in public places. We need to think more about how we treat our fellow humans. There's room for humor and poking fun in satire and parody. But, it shouldn't dominate discourse particularly when it promotes distortions and lies. My 2 cents about it, anyway.

[trthnd4jstc]

208. Protect Reporters Rights to Not Reveal Sources!!!!

Overturn much of the Patriot Acts, 1 and 2. Restore Habeous Corpus. Provide legislation that protects Reporters Rights to not Reveal Sources. I even have thought of a new Amendment to our constitution which would read: It is a Felony for anyone in the Federal Government to Lie to the Citizenry, with a fine of up to $1,000,000.00 and up to 5 years in Prison per Offense. It is also a Felony for anyone to use their appointed positions in Government for Partisan aims.
This would make indictable many actions by the Vice Presidents office. Where should partisanship end? Should the Executive Branch be allowed to behave for its own partisanship aims? Of course the Legislature needs to be Partisan, but not the Judiciary, nor the Executive Branch.
Further, if we had an Amendment to separate the Department of Justice from the Executive Branch, forming a Fourth Branch of our Government, we may be better off!

[Yael]

229. Another K&R

[H2O Man]

237. I invite all

of my friends and sparring partners to continue this session on my new thread, "Changes."

Thank yyou.

[ClericJohnPreston]

248. No thank you....

I'd rather stay here where your pompous ignorance is on full display. You are living on some type of reputation, that does not cow someone new here, like me. I judge you by what I have seen, which is pettiness, foolish name-dropping ( my friend Dick Gregory )and non-sequiturs. Perhaps others confuse this shallowness with grand meaning, but it still rings hollow to me.

You see, you haven't had some great revelation. You have shown up in any Pro-Obama thread, being Pro-Obama. You alleged you were an Edwards fan until recently.

In a word, BULL!

Not once have you ever hung out in an Edwards supporters forum ( I would know, I have learned who all his supporters are ), nor have you come into any Edwards thread I have been, where you weren't an antagonist. The first poster recognizes you are not neutral.

So, why LIE? Hmm?

Finally, you have a neurotic penchant to get in the last word. One merely has to look through this thread to see you coming back to get in the last word. You scream for attention. Your words, which are very telling:

"Being taken for granted is no fun at all. Taking a swing at the hornets' nest is fun.

So, you are both provocateur and needing to be the center of attention.

How anyone takes you seriously is beyond me!

[MelissaB]

278. Your argument doesn't hold water, and I'll tell you why.

I've been a John Edwards supporter from the beginning... the last election. I started out at the JREGrassroots.org board many moons ago and it lead me here to DU. You don't have to thrash and bash somebody's head in the way you are doing here because you like someone else better or hang out the the candidate's forum to be a supporter. I'm guessing that if it isn't my personality to this it may be others, too.

[ruggerson]

250. Running away from all the questions you have on this one

eh?

I invite everyone to read and reread and reread this thread.

[H2O Man]

252. Ha!

That's good. Let's keep this kicked and going.

[ClericJohnPreston]

254. You better believe it

This self-aggrandizing hypocrite has outright lied and I am calling him on it! Being Pro-Edwards, I have never seen him as someone other than Pro-Obama in any thread since I have been here.

So, why lie and make it seem like he just had a revelation?

Why Waterman?

Why do you need to drop names in non-sequiturs from Confucius to Dick Gregory? The funniest part is when you invoke Confucius name, and then quote him.

You see, Confucius' social philosophy largely revolves around the concept of ren, “compassion” or “loving others.” Cultivating or practicing such concern for others involved deprecating oneself. This meant being sure to avoid artful speech or an ingratiating manner that would create a false impression and lead to self-aggrandizement. Yet you preen for compliments and have a style which is self-congratulatory. In other words, the complete OPPOSITE of Confucian thought.

You are one mixed up guy, Mr. Waterman.

[Garbo 2004]

288. But then you haven't been here that long, although long enough to feel free to engage in personal

attacks on a person whose long posting history you evidently do not know.

While Edwards was still in the race, although H2O Man had not "declared" for any candidate, my impression was that he was leaning towards Edwards. But that was based on many months of reading his posts about the candidates and issues, not a few weeks. Therefore I see no "hypocrisy" or "lie." Your attack is simply unfounded.

In your short posting history here you've appeared to be strongly if not indeed virulently anti-Obama and not above engaging in personal attacks. Apparently H2O Man's not previously joining in overt support or disdain for one candidate versus another and his subsequent choice of candidate is the basis for your direct personal attacks here.

Rather than "unmasking" H2O Man you instead continue to reveal yourself by your disdainful and unwarranted personal attacks.

[bleever]

238. Here, someone hold my stuff

while I jump into this.

I like Hillary Clinton. She will be a great president, I believe, if she gets the nomination.

I like Chelsea Clinton. She has always shown grace and poise, under the brightest of public spotlights. For someone to use the phrase "pimped out" in connection with her is inexcusable. If I were her parent, and running for office, I would have two reasons to object: first, the personal, wherein I demand that any such insinuation (intentional or not) be disavowed, and second, the political, where my response in defense of my daughter demonstrates my willingness to mix it up with anyone in politics or the media who wants to call me out. Dukakis learned the hard way that when someone brings your family into it, you have to react like a human, and not a policy wonk.

I like David Shuster. Others have already described his attributes as an excellent reporter and analyst. His use of the phrase "pimped out" was a tremendous error in judgment. My own guess is that he'd do anything to take those words back and to have said "farmed out" or "selectively deployed" instead. But we all have to pay for our mistakes. I understand his instinct to defend himself by saying that he never meant it in the most derogatory sense, and to try to put it into the context of the Clinton's selective granting of access to Chelsea, but he should be savvy enough to know that these days, a national figure shouldn't say "I'm sorry if..." or "I'm sorry but...", but should say unequivocally, "I'm sorry".

I like MSNBC. Lots of great stuff happening there; it's my favorite cable TV source of news. But if, while trying to be hip and edgy, some of the people there cross the line as they have recently, they have to fix it. It has to stop, for the good of everyone, including MSNBC and the good work that they are capable of doing.

And I like the First Amendment, and people dedicated to protecting it. Free discussion is imperative, and disagreements are inevitable. Anyone raising awareness of the the dangers of politicians trying to chill media scrutiny based on historical experience is fighting a critical fight. I think it's a good fight.

[Berry Cool]

299. Beautifully said, bleev.

Can't argue with you on any of that.

[Kurovski]

243. K&R. Whew.

Posting and reading on DU sure is "hard werk."

Thanks, H2O! :thumbsup:

[H2O Man]

244. Thanks!

I've had fun on this one!

[ClericJohnPreston]

249. So have I

Stripping away mystique and myth are great fun!

[pnwmom]

246. There absolutely HAS been a pattern of demeaning comments about HRC

on MSNBC.

Tweety -- "I HATE her" -- is the biggest offender, but there are others.

If the "pimping out" comment had been made about Michelle Obama, EVERYONE on DU would have jumped to her defense. No would would have been worried about intimidation of the media.

[H2O Man]

253. More Media Manipulation.....

Next Up for the Democrats: Civil War
By Frank Rich
The New York Times

Sunday 10 February 2008
What if a presidential candidate held what she billed as "the largest, most interactive town hall in political history" on national television, and no one noticed?

The untold story in the run-up to Super Tuesday was Hillary Clinton's elaborate live prime-time special the night before the vote. Presiding from a studio in New York, the candidate took questions from audiences in 21 other cities. She had plugged the event four days earlier in the last gasp of her debate with Barack Obama and paid a small fortune for it: an hour of time on the Hallmark Channel plus satellite TV hookups for the assemblies of supporters stretching from coast to coast.

The same news media that constantly revisited the Oprah-Caroline-Maria rally in California ignored "Voices Across America: A National Town Hall." The Clinton campaign would no doubt attribute this to press bias, but it scrupulously designed the event to avoid making news. Like the scripted " Ask President Bush" sessions during the 2004 campaign, this town hall seemed to unfold in Stepford. The anodyne questions ("What else would you do to help take care of our veterans?") merely cued up laundry lists of talking points. Some in attendance appeared to trance out.

But I'm glad I watched every minute, right up until Mrs. Clinton was abruptly cut off in midsentence so Hallmark could resume its previously scheduled programming (a movie promising "A Season for Miracles," aptly enough). However boring, this show was a dramatic encapsulation of how a once-invincible candidate ended up in a dead heat, crippled by poll-tested corporate packaging that markets her as a synthetic product leeched of most human qualities. What's more, it offered a naked preview of how nastily the Clintons will fight, whatever the collateral damage to the Democratic Party, in the endgame to come.

For a campaign that began with tightly monitored Web " chats" and then planted questions at its earlier town-hall meetings, a Bush-style pseudo-event like the Hallmark special is nothing new, of course. What's remarkable is that instead of learning from these mistakes, Mrs. Clinton's handlers keep doubling down. ....

More at: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021008A.shtml

[bigtree]

259. I enjoyed the broadcast

You seem determined to elevate the most base politics in defense of your candidate. This program from Clinton included live questions from SEVERAL gatherings of voters from around the nation. I'm not surprised that you'd take Rich's put-down of the event and twist it to fit this defeated diatribe of yours. But, there is no issue at all with candor of the positions and views that Clinton offered voters in the forum. I must note that it was imminently more informative than much of the preachifying which comes from the Obama rallies. I wish he'd do more of these quiet events, laying out his plat form in a non-confrontational setting where voters could judge him on his own merits. I think all of the candidates could bemefit from thse types of televised forums. Your objections are self-serving and petty.

[Major Hogwash]

261. How weird this all is to see what George was doing in 2004 with all the prearranged questions again.

I don't think Hillary could have a real debate without knowing what the questions would be about.

[bigtree]

268. obviously, if that is the case, Obama KNOWS the questions in advance, as well

I suspect though, that it is not

[Major Hogwash]

283. Sorry to burst your bubble.

But, Hillary has put her foot in her mouth almost as many times as Bubba has this last month.

When she started talking about garnishing wages for her federal health care plan, that sounded like facism to this American.

You can ask me to live a healthy life, you can even offer incentives to do it, but you can't make me pay for healthcare.

Hillary is a DINO - a Democrat In Name Only.

[KoKo]

264. Her Campaign purchased that TIME...are you saying she Demanded it?

Frank Rich's column drips in sarcasm...but do you remember what he wrote about Al Gore?

I found this a "hit piece." And, I'm still undecided between Obama and Gore..:shrug:

[spanone]

267. it is very frightening

i do not see a troubling pattern...i see an ill-advised comment..

[ClericJohnPreston]

269. ill advised

manipulative, untrue and a facade for an agenda.

The OP is disingenuous to the core, having been caught IMMEDIATELY as an Obama supporter, feigning neutrality. Add that to his usual repetoire of self-aggrandizing comments, lauding and praising himself, or demanding that from others, and I know why I find this poster so unbearable.

I'm glad he has learned that I'm far from the only one who sees through his act, and that it becomes tiresome very quickly.

[Me.]

272. Pish

Tosh.

[elixir]

273. You're a disturbing pattern, this is a nonissue. Shame on you for starting such an innane thread.

Gee, I wonder if the events between the Clinton campaign and MSNBC rise to the level of Nixon's watergate shenanegans?!!!! NOOOOOOOOOO

Take a break and get some water.

[ClericJohnPreston]

275. He is H2O man

because his arguments are all wet!

[yardwork]

280. I see a very troubling pattern in the way that the media is manipulated by the right.

I applaud Senator Clinton's stand on this. I wish that Senator Kerry had taken as strong and vehement a stand when he was swift-boated.

I disagree that the threat to the First Amendment comes from the Clintons or any Democrat. At this point, we barely have a First Amendment because we barely have a "free press." The only way to reverse that is to make a lot of noise.

Apparently, Shuster is not as bad as most of the talking heads. However, his use of the term "pimp" and a candidate's daughter's name in the same sentence is absolutely unacceptable. Most Americans would be disappointed in a candidate who didn't defend her family.

I usually agree with you, H2OMan, and I have a lot of respect for you. I happen to disagree about this.

[ClericJohnPreston]

282. Kick

because sometimes it is important to expose duplicity and an agenda.

[Irishonly]

284. It's All Troubling

For 8+ years we have endured a press that pushed the administration's agenda. Bright spots in reporting were few and far in between. All media was declared librul and the WH had no problems putting pressure on reporters. We found out during the Libby trial that all we suspected about Timmy was true but yet he still hosts MTP. We have endured Tweety's man crushes and the courting of republican candidates while democratic ones have been treated like a boil on the buttocks of the earth.

David Shuster had done some fantastic reporting. No one can deny this fact. His reporting on the Libby trial was professional and he pulled no punches. A couple of days ago he put his foot in his mouth. I have read all the response's and sat here shaking my head at some. Every one has their opinion on whether he made a sexist comment or not. I was horrified when I heard it and my thought was he was trying to slam the parents and made a comment which seemed to slime the daughter. I also thought it was the most stupid thing I had ever heard him say. My thought was he should not have been using slang in the first place. Had he chosen different words we would not be having this discussion. Many people understood what he meant but just as many didn't. MSNBC has to worry about the ones that didn't.

I see a pattern of sexism at MSNBC. I can't get into Tweety because all he has to do is open his mouth and I get mad. Tweety has made some comments to and about women that crossed the line and his man crushes are old. I wrote when I heard about Scarborough's comments about the pole dancing and other comments he made about Thompson's wife. People have documented many instances of inappropriate comments. I don't think commentators should talk like they are sitting in your living room having a conversation with you. I think freedom of speech can be exercised without ever crossing a line and coming across as racist or sexist.

I was surprised at Shuster's suspension and I hope he is back on the air soon. I must have been one of the few people that understood the Clinton camp was not trying to get him fired when I read the first story. They commented on a "troubling pattern" of MSNBC not David Shuster.

[yardwork]

287. I agree. I really can't imagine why any Democrat would side with the media on this.

As I say above, the attack on the First Amendment is coming from the corporate-owned media itself and their corporatist right-wing masters.

It's about time that Democrats stood up and started calling them on their nonsense.

[robbedvoter]

286. here's the answer that this deserves:

A Troubling Analogy: Why Do Some Support Nixon Dirty Tricksters Over Democrat Hillary Clinton?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4530931

Adding here - to make sure it gets noticed:

KERRY DEMADED THAT THE ENTIRE MEDIA IGNORE ALMOST 2 MILLION VOTERS IN FLORIDA

DISCUSS.

[usregimechange]

289. kick!

[H2O Man]

294. Good morning!

Who's next?

[Patsy Stone]

296. I'll go next.

Yes, Hillary's campaign is manipulating this situation to its advantage. I only need to look at juxtaposition of the moral outrage they expressed over Shuster's "sexist" remarks (and I'll get back to the quotation marks in a minute) with the fact they apparently felt comfortable enough with the network to send Howard Wolfson out on Morning Joe today to speak for the campaign to see that. I mean, which is it? Are they angry with MSNBC or not? Exactly how outraged are they? Is there a limit to defending Chelsea's virtue and, if so, where is that line?

Now, for the explanation of the quotes.

It's very easy to resort to pure emotion in any situation. If one looks at the situation logically, however, and examines what he actually said -- the words he actually used -- instead of what people choose to infer, it's obvious he didn't call Chelsea a whore. What he did do, in no uncertain terms however, was call the Clintons pimps.

"They are pimping her out in a weird way." The subject of that sentence is "they". They are the ones pimping. Believe me when I tell you that Hillary would rather not have that argument, whether or not they are exploiting their daughter for personal gains in a selective manner. Hillary would rather come out as the fighting mother, defending her child's honor, even when it wasn't in question. Why? Well, what else can you think of that would galvanize women (her biggest demographic) around her?

Last I checked, calling a man and a woman pimps is not sexist. Inappropriate? Sure. Out of the mainstream? Sure. But to think it was sexist, you would have to accept the premise that his comments were directed at Chelsea. I don't, because they weren't; they were directed at the Clintons' actions.

With the false "sexism" premise gone, I'm only left with whether or not it was correct for Shuster to use the phrase "pimping out", and I don't think it was. If I have one issue with Shuster, it's on semantics. If he had used the term "exploiting Chelsea", and exploit is a valid definition of "pimp" according to Merriam-Webster ("to make use of often dishonorably for one's own gain or benefit") instead of "pimping" the cries of sexism would be moot. And what would she be left with? This: "We were just called pimps on national TV!" Now THAT's a valid, logical argument and certainly something to be upset about. Had she chastised MSNBC for calling a presidential candidate a pimp, I'd be right behind her. But she didn't.

Now, back to media manipulation. Instead of fighting that fight, the campaign chose to use this incident to exemplify the "pattern of behavior" at the network. A pattern so obvious to her that she hasn't noticed it until now. A pattern so hideous, Shuster has to be suspended for their sins; a pattern so insulting she's willing to boycott MSNBC altogether until she extracts a pound of flesh -- or until she needs Wolfson to go on MSNBC and shill for her. A pattern so pervasive in media, it only exists at MSNBC.

Inconsistencies, faulty premises, dangerous inferences and media manipulation are all at play here. When three or four arguments are conflated into one situation, and some are based on faulty premises or inconsistent behavior, there is nothing but chaos. Most of the bad blood here is due to people sticking with one interpretation of the situation, either because it's convenient or they don't know better.

I've already been flamed for trying to make this distinction, and during that time I actually found myself defending Rush Limbaugh's right to free speech, because the first amendment applies to all, even those on the right.

To quote one of my favorite speeches from The American President:

"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say 'You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.' You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the 'land of the free'."

[bleever]

298. Why do you hate America?

And why do you use so many words?


Nicely done. And I'll add one of my own favorite quotes about free speech: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to tell such lies." :)

[Patsy Stone]

304. It's not so much

why do I use so many words, but why do I use so many commas? If I had to pay for them I'd be broke. :)

[Berry Cool]

300. And another great post

to which I can add nothing that hasn't been said a million times before, Patsy. Thank you.

[bettyellen]

301. but you agree there's a pattern- i don't get it then, she just picked the wrong time to complain ?

or she lost her right to complain because she had put up with it?
i disagree, in that it is sexist in that it's degrading in a way that wouldn;t be used on man. there's kind of a long standing ugly office thing of comparing working women to "working women", not so for men. would they say this about a son- he was being "pimped out" ? i doubt it. but this is great, it denigrates the whole family with one nasty remark.
on the flip side: would a man be put down or doubted in the least for defending his daughter's honor? um, no. never. he'd be expected to.
so, while i think it's nice - and interesting to reduce to it all sematics- it doesn;t cover how complicated this really is.
i worked with complete pigs for many many years. and for me, yeah there was one incident that made me blow my gasket.
it wasn't that i hadn;t noticed, i just hadn't hit my limit. happens all the time.

[bleever]

302. Before I reduce your post to a pile of smoking rubble,

...oh wait; that's not what I was going to do. :hi:

I want to give you props for two things you made me think about. First, that the verb "pimp" when used on a person really does have different connotations when the object is a woman and not a man. While I agree with Patsy that he was referring to the parents as the ones supposedly being the ones "pimping", I agree that the emotional impact is not the same as if someone accused Romney of "pimping out" his sons. There is an implication in the phrase for the one who is pimped, and his phraseology unfortunately raises that implication automatically, whatever his intent.

Secondly, you got me to thinking about the real complexity of this situation, in terms of the conjunction of two separate things that need to be fully acknowledged. One is the rational question of what words mean in their most exact sense, and the other is what happens when you take that concretely-defined word or set of words, and toss it into the pond of human society. It makes splashes and ripples and can muddy the water, and it can't fall back on claiming innocence in the face of the possible chaos because it was, itself, so specific in form and intent.

While I do wonder why Senator Clinton chose to come down so hard on MSNBC after the history of egregious comments by FOX Nuisance and even her "good friend" John McCain, Shuster should have said, "I'm sorry" without any ifs or buts. KO did it right in apologizing for MSNBC.


Thanks for helping the two sides of my brain work together on this issue, BE.

[bettyellen]

305. You're welocme Bleeve, You have dne the same for me manys a time...

And I really liked Patsy's post-and she is right- I do believe when you brake it into units that it is intended to be an insult to the parents. And it's not necesarily sexist to call someone a pimp either. a big but though- any parent would be offended on their kids behalf by that inference....you make that leap to the kid whoring.
And more importantly -they wouldn;t have pulled this crap on a man.
Because then they'd be asking for it wouldnt they? no one would question the dad blowing a serious gasket.
being a woman, she's an easy mark. (and that's really part of the why of all sexist behaviour-you get over simply because you calculate that you can- as opposed to maybe that guy over there who might punch you)
Once again, there's no right way for Hil to behave. I believe she would have been seen in an even worse light by ignoring it.. but again, It was a set up. Poke at the woman- laugh at whatever reaction you get. She's weaker ain't it funny. That's the pattern, she is not kidding, it does exist. i voted for barack last week, not crazy about hil, but i'm glad she adressed it as an issue at the station, because it is.

[Patsy Stone]

303. I agree there is a pattern.

I also know Hillary has been around long enough to know there is a pattern. Yes, I do believe she should have spoken up sooner, and that stupid-ass Chris Matthews stuff last month would have been a great time to do it. That was a time when she was directly attacked and remained silent.

This in no way negates her right to stick up for her daughter; however you and I disagree over whether or not this was a direct attack on her daughter. That's okay. Bleever's right, sometimes words can be clouded in emotional dreck, even when there are several interpretations or meanings.

There was enough here for Hillary to find fault with, disturbing pattern at MSNBC and being called a pimp (or madam?) included, without the further extrapolation. She could have made another argument for her point about the sexism and had a stronger footing. The way it unfolded, at least to me, seems like a ploy.

To be honest, I didn't like that she made all these noises about not attending the debate and then Howard Wolfson was on there today. You have to admit, those inconsistencies don't help her argument or her credibility in claiming this was all about her daughter's honor.

As for a man pimping out his sons, maybe it would be used in this day and age. If the person it was directed to was a presidential candidate, it would be just as wrong.

MSNBC has issues, but David Shuster isn't the real problem here. I think he was a sacrificial lamb, and it makes me sad.

[bleever]

306. Please,

I don't capitalize "bleever".

And I can't believe no one else has yet introduced the word "madam" into this situation, given its place in a parse-a-palooza like this. So you got that going for you.

Also, with regards to Shuster being the sacrificial lamb, it reminds me of: "God said to Abraham, kill me a son."

"Where you want this killing done?"

"God said, down on channel 61."


Shuster is not the appropriate sacrifice. In fact, choosing him as a scapegoat points to a profound dysfunction in our culture of political discourse.


I'll defend David Shuster, as a matter of defending authentic political discourse.

[Patsy Stone]

308. But...

It was at the beginning of a sentence, so I did it out of habit. Forgive me?

Free David Shuster! Let him reign in all of his stripey glory!

However, here's someone who might disagree with us: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4546793

:eyes:

I'm off to bed. See you later, lower case bleever.

[bettyellen]

309. i have no idea where she thinks she's going with the debate thing... it's a screw up because

it would really help her. that's part of why i can't belive this is strategic. or the wolfson thing- but obviously boycotting a major station would be counter productive. oh well.

but the media does not commonly use sexually charged language like this to describe everyday campaign or business activities of men. It just doesn't happen. no men are sadi to be pimping their kids.
we should keep a tally on what degrading sexual innuendo is hurled at Barack and John Mc Cain. I bet it's zero to maybe tossing a mild insult at their wife.
but i really don;t care how good shuster is, he screwed up big time, and was only faux apologetic about it. he was being admittedly vengeful as well as sexist. he has some growing up to do. two weeks is a blip, contray to the BS posted here.. he isn't ruined, and no one asked for him to be fired. this nixon crap is totally over the top.

[Bread and Circus]

307. You hit the nail on the head. It is scary when politicians try to control

the media.