Lowering the Bar: Is it a Dirty Trick to BE Hillary Clinton?

[McCamy Taylor]

Intro: Yesterday I asked people at Democratic Underground to list the specific dirty tricks that Sen. Clinton has used in this election to earn herself a reputation as a “Rovian” or “Nixonian” dirty trickster. I left the thread open for a day. The results surprised me. I expected more substance. After reading through the list, several things became apparent. First, many Democrats nowadays do not remember what Nixonian dirty tricks were. Nor, do they really understand how bad Karl Rove’s dirty tricks are or how completely he has terrified the members of the press. And they do not comprehend the willingness of the press to attack Hillary Clinton for no reason whatsoever.

I. The Press Accused Hillary of Running a Dirty Tricks Campaign Before There Was a Campaign

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23wed1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

In “The Low Road to Victory” the New York Times starts off with the premise that Hillary Clinton is the cause of the negative tone of the Democratic Primary. Then, the editorial changes positions in mid article to say that both candidates are responsible, but that Clinton made Obama do it, and therefore by the end of the piece, the writer(s) conclude that Clinton bears most of the blame. If you read the piece as propaganda---first and last paragraphs, Clinton is excoriated. All the disclaimers about Obama carrying some share of the guilt too, that the newspaper of record has to throw in so that it will not be accused of bias, are included in the middle where they are likely to be overlooked by the casual reader. The impression that is left by the editorial---and the story that was reported by so many---is that the New York Times blamed Hillary and Hillary alone for going negative.

We hear this a lot from the press. We hear this a lot from Sen. Obama’ supporters. We heard this in advance from Hillary Clinton’s enemies in the left wing of the Democratic Party and in the right wing. Indeed, their dire forecasts that any day now Hillary the bitch-witch-laser beam eye wielding ice queen would unleash her terrible wrath on poor innocent Obama, started even before the primary began. From my journal “The Press v. Hillary Clinton Pt 1”

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/157

In December 2006, Republicans with crystal balls were already tarring Hillary as the B word by pretending to offer Obama advice. Media Matters documents that Republican strategist Mike Murphy said on Hardball in December 2006:
“MURPHY: Oh, I think a lot of the love is going to be about Obama. He is now standing between Hillary and the nomination. So if I were Obama, I'd get a food tester in, quick.”


12-17-2008 on CNN’s Reliable Sources conservative San Francisco Chronicle Columnist Debra Saunders (who said Hillary would be a “shameless victim in chief” in 2-28-2008 column)
“SAUNDERS: I think the other thing that people are waiting for is they're wondering what kind of mud the Clinton machine is going to churn out on Barack Obama, and they're waiting to see -- for the mud fight. That's what I'm waiting to watch.”

The attacks had come from the left, too. From Arianna Huffington back in 2006 as documented in “The Press v. Hillary Clinton 4 Friendly Fire”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/cracking-the-hillary-code_b_20966.html

“Hillary Clinton is determined to single-handedly remove every last vestige of authenticity from American politics.”

All this before either candidate was in the race. As I document in this four part journal, the members of the press continued to make these kinds of predictions even when the tone of the primary was postive. The cumulative effect of this media smear is obvious. Hillary Clinton was labeled a dirty trickster by the members of the press before she had ever issued her first campaign ad.

II. Here Is What They Used to Mean When They Talked About “Nixonian Dirty Tricks”

I witnessed something funny one night on MSNBC. They were talking about the Dirty Trick that Matt Drudge pulled in which he edited Hillary Clinton’s 60 Minutes interview in order to make it sound like she answered the question “Do you think that Obama is a Muslim?” with a uncertain or cagey answer. It was a classic RNC Divide and Conquer dirty trick straight out of the Pat Buchanan 1972 CREEP play book.

Howard Fineman of Newsweek, who is supposed to be a political pro and who looks a hell of a lot older than me (I was 13 during Watergate, though I admit to being a Watergate junkie that summer during the hearings) said that Hillary’s answer was “Nixonian”.

Excuse me? Did he sleep through Watergate? Maybe he should go talk to Pat Buchanan, who just happens to work at MSNBC, about what he meant when he wrote that memo (the one he lied to Congress about) the one that called for

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/stories/buchananmemo.htm

"The preparation of attacks on one Democrat by another -- and 'endorsements' of one Democrat by another, which has to be repudiated, are examples of what can be done. Nothing should be done here, incidentally, which can seriously backfire and anything done should be cleared by the highest campaign authority. The Secret Service, it should be noted, will be all over Miami; and any activity will have to take into consideration their capabilities.
"We should guard here against a) anything which enables the Democrats to blame us for the mess which takes place in Miami Beach; b) anything which can be traced back to us and c) anything which is so horrendous as to damage us, if the hand is discovered."
The memo was labeled "CONFIDENTIAL"

Attacks on one Democrat by another. That was what Matt Drudge had just done. He had doctored a 60 Minutes tape, fed it to the press, who dutifully announced it to the world as a “Nixonian” Hillary dirty trick, even though the Nixonian one was Drudge.

Mama Mia! Was Fineman having a senior moment?

Here are some examples of Nixonian dirty tricks: These are attacks that the members of CREEP (Committee to Re-elect the President) waged against Muskie to drive him from the race, because Nixon did not want to run against him in the general election in 1972.

http://www.woodstockjournal.com/elections.html

1. Attacks against Muskie that make him look as if he is attacking fellow Democrats so that everyone will call Muskie a dirty trickster, a cheater, not true Democrats and other ugly names.

August, 1971, a newspaper article damning the political chances of Senator Edward Kennedy was mailed to the media and all members of Congress in counterfeit Muskie envelopes again by the Nixonites

Florida Primary A Miss Griffin, former worker in Republican state headquarter in Columbia, South Carolina was told to infiltrate Senator Muskie’s campaign
in the Florida presidential primary and sabotage it.This was in the winter of 71-’72
Griffin, for instance, helped prepare a bogus news-release on the campaign stationary of Senator Henry Jackson (running for the Democratic nomination also) accusing Muskie of preparing campaign materials on a gov’t-owned typewriter & other equipment in the office of Rep. Sam Gibbons of Tampa, a Democratic supporter of Muskie

February 2, 1972 The Nixonites sent out a letter from “Citizens for Muskie”: “We on the Senator Edmund Muskie staff sincerely hope you have decided upon Senator Muskie as your choice. However, if you have not made your decision you should be aware of several facts” The letter went on to accuse Senators Jackson & Humphrey of a variety of sexual activities going back to 1929. The letter was prepared with the help of
25 year old Robert Benz, a Young Republicans leader from Tampa. A Tampa accountant named George A. Hearing later pleaded guilty to publishing and distributing the Muskie sex letter after negotiation with fed. pros. Bill Haines

February 20, 1972 other phony Muskie letters were handed out at a Wallace rally in the Tampa-St. Petersburg area, an area considered key to victory by Muskie’s staff The Wallace rally letter read, “If you like Hitler, you’d love Wallace”

2. Dirty tricks involving theft of campaign info

Summer of ’71 a poll of NJ voters was removed from Muskie headquarters in the middle of the night on the way to the Nixonites

Decemberber 71 Muskie polling expert Anna Navaro gathered the raw data from a poll of New Hampshire voters, preparing for the first of the Nation’s primaries She left her desk just a few moments When she returned, someone had stolen the polling data

Late 1971 Richard Nixon’s re-election campaign would pay a taxi driver working as a courier for the Muskie campaign in D.C.to photograph the documents with a 35 mm camera and turn the photos over to the Nixonites

3. Pranks to make the campaign look disorganized or cost it money or build up bad pr (Muskie could not even run a decent campaign, how could be be a good president?)

Early 1972, Florida On Florida’s east coast a fabricated letter appeared inviting the public to a gala, free luncheon at Muskie headquarters at the Biscayne Terrace Hotel and then lots of people came wanting the lunch

In addition Nixonites were polling for Muskie in the North Miami suburbs between 3-5 am causing anger in those awakened

Then there was the April 17 blow out dirty trick in which Muskie was charged for huge orders of COD liquor, pastry, limousines, pizzas and two magicians (!!!)

Also, billboards were put up stating that he was for stuff he was not for. Fake telephones polls were made in Muskie’s name stating positions that were sure to turn off voters. There is the “Canuck” letter which Nixon used to offend voters in New Hampshire. And, CREEP most likely drugged Muskie, the effects of which are described by Hunter S. Thompson in Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ’72 in order to make him look mentally unstable.

This is what people mean when they talk about “Nixonian” dirty tricks. Keep this in mind when we start talking about the “dirty tricks” that Clinton stands accused of.

III. Here is What They Mean When They Talk About “Rovian Dirty Tricks”

Some people really underestimate Bush’s Brain, the self styled Rasputin. Saying “Shame on you, Barack Obama” is not a Rovian Dirty Trick. This is a Rovian Dirty Trick.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/09/uselections2004.usa1

The 1986 governor's race was a prime example. The contest between Rove's Republican client, Bill Clements, and the Democratic incumbent, Mark White, was neck and neck, when Rove announced he had found an electronic listening device in his office, and cried foul. The furore swung the election to Clements and to this day Texan Democrats are convinced Rove concocted the whole episode.

And this.

In its last days, the 1994 campaign also turned nasty. Texan voters began receiving calls from "pollsters" asking questions such as: "Would you be more or less likely to vote for Governor Richards if you knew her staff is dominated by lesbians?"

And then there is this, the story about how Karl Rove chose to use J.T. Hatfield a man with a felony conviction, to publish the story of all W.’s skeleton’s before the 2000 presidential election, knowing that he could them turn around and throw him to the wolves, since who would believe a felon? Hatfield was hounded literally to death, so that Rove could put the fear of his own wrath into any reporter who dared to go up against the Bush machine.

http://www.sanderhicks.com/bushbrain.html

More Rove dirty tricks. Using the DOJ as his personal political tool to indict Democratic politicians around the country before elections. Using the Justice Department to rubber stamp Voting Rights Act violating state laws that gave Republicans an edge in elections. He set up Dan Rather to scare reporters so that they would not report on Ohio 2004 election theft. He used push polls and smears and lies against John McCain—a fellow Republican---in 2000 in South Carolina in an open, very blatant way. Rove is basically the modern J Edgar Hoover. One thing that distinguishes Rove from Pat Buchanan and Nixon, the latter used discretion. They knew that they must not get caught. Rove uses intimidation. He wants the press to know what he has done. If he makes them afraid by driving some of their members to death or by destroying their careers as he sought to do with Dan Rather, he figures that the rest of them will be so scared that they will not care call him out when he is conducting dirty ops. Most of them will keep quiet. A fair number will go along. Thanks to the AT&T warrantless wiretap blackmail ops, he can even keep some Democrats and liberals in his pocket. That makes him even more scary, especially to people who report the news for a living or who run for public office for a living.

III. Hillary Clinton’s Dirty Tricks

Here are the “charges” that were submitted over the course of a day at Democratic Underground by people responding to a request to submit specific dirty tricks that she or members of her campaign team had conducted during the 2008 presidential primary. I encourage everyone to read the thread and judge for themselves what does and does not constitute a Rovian or Nixonian dirty trick from the Hillary Clinton camp.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5659361

In the rest of this journal I will discuss a trend which I noted, namely that the bar for what constitutes a "dirty trick" seems to lowered to the point that we are now playing Presidential Primary Limbo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR-fCpi6DqU

First up the all capital letter charge SINCE WHEN DOES A DEMOCRAT ATTACK ANOTHER DEMOCRAT? The answer is since a long time ago. If you think that candidates do not criticize each other in the primary, then you are thinking about Republicans. Look back at what Ted Kennedy did to Carter in 1980. Look at the 1960 primary. Look at the first time FDR ran. He won the nomination on the 3rd ballot. It is dog eat dog among the Democrats.

But, speaking of this campaign season, look at the date on this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/03/AR2007110300893_pf.html

Obama Criticizes Clinton's Drive to Win
An Eye on the Prize Is Not on the Issues of Ordinary Americans, He Asserts
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 4, 2007; A05
Sen. Barack Obama leveled a fresh round of criticism at Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday, accusing his rival for the Democratic nomination of following a campaign plan that prizes calculation over candor and that is aimed more at winning the election than uniting the country.
In a telephone interview, Obama described Clinton's campaign as one that embraces the conventional wisdom of Washington, which he said argues that candidates "should be vague and avoid definitive answers in campaigns, in part to make yourself a smaller target to Republican attacks. . . . She has mastered that in this primary."
snip
Clinton's campaign has accused Obama of trading the politics of hope for a series of negative attacks. Obama responded by saying, "I think it would be hard to argue that we are engaging in negative campaigning when we're making a basic argument about why I'd be the best candidate, and show the differences that we have not just on policy but on our approach to leadership."

As Obama was campaigning in South Carolina, two of his leading supporters in Iowa released a letter calling on Clinton to expedite the release of thousands of pages of documents from her husband's presidential library that bear on her activities during his two terms in the White House.

I hope you get all that? Hillary accuses the Obama camp of going negative. The Obama camp accuses Hillary of displaying an unbecoming degree of ambition. Obama then acts like Dan Burton when he is not shooting watermelons and demands to see Clinton documents---the demands are below the belt in that they imply that there must be dark secrets in there or else Clinton would turn them over immediately.

As for “Shame on you”, another "dirty trick" of which Clinton stands accused, she said that in response to deceptive flyers put out by the Obama camp before the Ohio primary, which she might call dirty tricks, and he might call politics as usual. It is all a matter of degrees. Her reaction looked like an honest, heart felt response for which the MSM spent days hounding her for her supposed “Sybil” like multiple personality disorder. Note that Obama later echoed her with “Shame” remarks of his own which received little media attention and no recommendations for psychiatric care. That suggests that in the long run, the dirty tricksters were the members of the press, who call Hillary "crazy".

And, long before either of them said the word “shame”, way back before the Iowa primary, when Bob Novak attempted a classic Nixonian dirty trick that anyone of Obama’s age should recognize---Bob Novak claimed that he knew that Hillary had dirt on Obama but was not going to use it---Obama chose to confront Clinton in public, branding her for all the world as a dirty trickster, based upon the word of one of Karl Rove’s known minions. Obama revealed himself to be either incredibly naïve---so naïve that I wonder if he can survive a primary against Karl Rove—or a very nasty dirty trickster himself, since everyone knows that voters in Iowa hate dirty tricks.

Here is another example of a Democrat criticizing a fellow Democrat.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/29/hold_the_crumpets.html

In December, Obama dismissed Clinton’s foreign policy experience as little more than drinking tea with foreign dignitaries. This was before Gary Hary accused Clinton of violating the “Final Rule” by criticizing Obama’s foreign policy experience. Note that this is another gender based attack. It was while trying to undo the damage that this remark has caused to her campaign that Hillary began to repeat the story of her trip to Bosnia. At first, she talked mostly of the strategic importance of the mission. Later, when she embellished the story, the Obama camp would again attack her foreign policy readiness.

I am not going to try to discuss every charge. Some of them are well documented and can read on their own in the original thread. Instead, I will point out some patterns that show that the term "dirty trick" is often misapplied when it comes to Hillary Clinton.

If Someone Else Did It, It Is Still Hillary’s Fault

It does not matter who started it. If it was something that the right wing press or the RNC did or said, Hillary is still to blame. Either she planted it or she is raising money off of it or she is propelling it or she is secretly glad of it or she got some extra votes because of it.

If it is something that Obama himself did or said or should have known better than to do, it is still Hillary’s fault. Either she tricked him into doing it, or she is raising money off of it or she is misrepresenting it or she is propelling it or she is getting extra votes from it.

Here are the “dirty tricks” that were cited that fall into this category.

1.Drudge’s doctored 60 Minutes interview.
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200803110002

2. Fox News airing of Rev. Wright’s Tapes (this should probably also fall under the category of Obama political slip up’s too, since Rev. Obama warned him to distance himself from the Church before announcing the campaign, predicting that he would have precisely the problems he is now facing. Most men would listen to their pastor’s advice and not seek to blame their political opponent). For those who believe that Clinton should not discuss this issue, I would remind them that the Obama camp started Sniper-gate when Obama supporter Sinbad made comments about Clinton and that the Obama camp has been sending e-mails and memos to the press regularly to keep this story alive and that its surrogates in the press like Keith Olbermann have pushed the Sniper-gate story. If Hillary’s veracity is an issue to be discussed in regard to her fitness to be president, then Obama’s moral and political views as indicated by his choice of Church for ten years are also an issue worthy of discussion. One poster suggested that Clinton only mentions Wright to distract from Snipergate, however Sinbad spoke out on 3-13 and the Snipergate story took days to develop while Wright was already on the Fox website on 3-12, suggesting that the Obama campaign actually created Snipergate to distract from the Wright story.

3. Bitter-gate: Again, Obama made these remarks which I am sure that he regrets. The words are newsworthy, because they revealed a side of the Senator that people had not seen before. Many people at DU also revealed a side of themselves which they had not revealed before by agreeing with what he said. If he could unsay them, I am sure that he would. The best he can do now, is try to unsay them with spin. Clinton can not be accused of dirty tricks for getting in the way of his spin. She is not his mother nor his campaign manager.

4. Farrakhan: The first time the name was brought up by Tim Russert and Brian Williams of NBC. They were the ones laying the trap for Obama, trying to get him to refuse to reject Farrakhan. Obama supporters should be glad that Clinton offered their candidate a way to do so while saving face. The headlines the next day could have been ugly. That one was a MSM dirty trick. In the ABC debate, Hillary should have left Farrakhan out. Obama had already rejected him. One bone fide Clinton low blow but this hardly rises to the level of a dirty trick. A dirty trick would be stealing Obama stationary and writing a fake memo in which he praises Farrakhan and sending it to the press. Or having someone lie and say that Obama praised Farrakhan as a hero at a meeting on such and such date.

5. The Whole ABC Debate Was Clinton’s Fault: Um…No. ABC made news by being the first network to get tough with the new front runner. At least he did not have to endure a pile on with two other opponents the way that Clinton did in New Hampshire when both Edwards and Obama were taking shots at her at the same time. ABC was not a Clinton dirty trick anymore than New Hampshire was an Edwards/Obama dirty trick.

6. NAFTAgate: Again, this was evidence of miscommunication or deception from within the Obama camp. If the press reported on it, that does not make it a dirty trick. Much dirtier, to my mind, was the way that Keith Olbermann came on television in the middle of NAFTAgate to announce that Obama was innocent and now Clinton was guilty based upon some hearsay that was quickly retracted. Keith Olbermann does not make up his own stories. He is too busy covering sports. Who pushed that story? Someone in the press ? Or the Obama campaign itself? That was a dirty trick on Olbermann and Clinton.

7. Attacks by the press on Michelle are Hillary’s fault: The one cited is the statement Michelle Obama made about keeping the house in order. It was misrepresented by the press so that they could claim that she was calling out Hillary Clinton. That way the good old boys in the media could have a chuckle about a cat fight. This is a MSM dirty trick, not a Clinton dirty trick. As I keep pointing out, if the Clintons were rich and powerful enough to own even one media empire, they would not bother running for president.

8. Ayers. Again, this is something that ABC brought up. And they brought it up in such a way that Clinton almost had to respond, as the Senator from New York State, which makes her the Senator from 9/11. People in NYC will never “move on” the way that the rest of the country have. If she moves into the White House one day and starts getting letters from around the country and not just from constituents in NY, her bias may change, but for now you can expect her to stay something of a hawk when it comes to 9/11, because of the WTC. It is what her voters still talk to her about.

9. Rezko: That whole affair is Obama’s fault. Blaming Hillary is just plain childish. Blame Bush and Rove for scheduling the trial this year if you want to blame anyone.

10. Bowlinggate: Is this for real? Is anyone supposed to care? Except for the press. Hillary can’t bowl either.

11. Drudge had a picture of Obama in an African dress and said he got it from Hillary. Read the list of Nixonian Dirty Tricks. This is classic 1972 stuff, the kind that Karl Rove learned from Segretti. It smeared Clinton and Obama both. It is a right wing dirty trick.

12.Saying LBJ was responsible for the civil rights act. This is another MSM dirty trick. How do I know? Because it only hurts Clinton. Even if she actually said these words, they would not hurt Obama. He is not MLK Jr. He is a politician running for public office. He can propose legislation, too. So it can not be a dirty trick designed to hurt Obama. And she did not say the words that someone----the press or Obama or the right wing or all three---pretended that she said.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801130004

She said that LBJ was better at getting things done than JFK. That was the part that was deliberately left out when people started posting it on YouTube and claiming Hillary was a racist heading into South Carolina. Now, if that was done by the Obama camp and if they knew what she actually said but chose to misrepresent her words in order to cause hurt feelings among some members of the Democratic Party, that makes the Obama camp the one responsible for the dirty trick.

13. Bill Clinton’s “Fairy Tale”. He said it about Obama’s war record not his campaign. I am glad to see that someone got that part correct. Clinton is not the only person to point out that Obama changed his public presentation of his views on the war between 2002 and the present a couple of times. I am ok with that. It is smart politics. I am not sure why Obama felt that it was necessary to draw attention to this charge by attacking Bill Clinton. I would have left it alone. The case Clinton was making was too complicated for most people to bother with anyway. But, for whatever reason, someone decided to claim that Clinton called the idea of a Black man being president a “fairy tale”.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/opinion/12herbert.html?ex=1357880400&en=822a8b22f6498a64&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

So there was the former president chastising the press for the way it was covering the Obama campaign and saying of Mr. Obama’s effort: “The whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”
And there was Mrs. Clinton telling the country we don’t need “false hopes,” and taking cheap shots at, of all people, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
We’d already seen Clinton surrogates trying to implant the false idea that Mr. Obama might be a Muslim, and perhaps a drug dealer to boot. It struck me that the prediction of so many commentators that Senator Obama was about to run away with the nomination, and bury the Clintons in the process, was the real fairy tale.

Well shame on Bob Herbert of the NYT’s. Did Bob Herbert think of misusing Hillary and Bill's words for dirty tricks all by himself or was he working for someone?

14. Drug use: Yes, indeed the husband of Jeanne Shaheen really did speculate about whether or not the adolescent drug use that Obama describes in his best selling memoirs might become a campaign issue in the fall. He had to leave the Clinton campaign because of it. There is no truth to the rumor that Penn brought up the subject on Hardball. It was an All Obama All Drugs show and Tweety kept asking “Do things really do better with coke?” And who knows what BET founder Johnson was going on about? Billionaires do what they want. No one tells them what to do. Since Shaheen was let go, this does not count as a dirty trick (unless we are going to count “Monster” as one). Now, the All Obama All Drug show would count as one---except that Axelrod agreed to be on it, for some reason. Maybe because Chris Matthews later lied and claimed that Mark Penn was the one who introduced the subject of Obama’s drug use on the show (even though it was all that Matthews would talk about). If Tweety and Axelrod set it up before time to punk Penn, then it was a Matthews/Axelrod dirty trick.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801150018

15. “You’re likable enough” Obama said it, not Hillary. How on earth anyone could get a dirty trick out of that, I do not know. I am trying to picture Segretti’s reaction if some CREEP newbie came in and suggested “We record one of the Dems saying to another ‘You’re likable enough’ but you know, like he doesn’t really mean it. You know, like they aren’t really drinking buddies. What do you think?” Was Hillary supposed to sock him in the jaw to prove to America that she really isn’t likable? Is that what she did wrong?

16. Someone in the Clinton campaign really did forward an email about Obama maybe being a Muslim. That is just about the only documented dirty trick like activity of anyone in the Clinton campaign. And guess what. That unpaid staffer was sent on her way. So, once again, if “Monster” is a dirty trick that Obama played, then this is a dirty trick that Hillary played. If Obama is not responsible for “Monster”, then Clinton is not responsible for this either.

17. Mentioning Hamas on the ABC debate. That was pretty dirty. Ok, another low blow by Clinton.

18. New Hampshire mailer about Obama’s present votes in reproductive issues. This issue is not so cut and dried as some make out. Planned Parenthood Illinois said that they were fine with Obama’s present vote, but other women’s groups, particularly on a national level and in more liberal states are not impressed. The Obama camp needs to realize that Planned Parenthood Illinois does not speak for all women. Saying that all women should be ok with it because Planned Parenthood Illinois was ok with it would be like Clinton saying Blacks should vote for her, because she has a handful of African-American supporters. For example, here is NOW on the issue.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/connecticut_now_hits_obama_on.php

The National Organization for Women chapter in Connecticut is joining the Hillary campaign's condemnation of Barack Obama's "present" votes on some abortion bills back in Illinois, sending out an e-mail to its members that quotes the head of Illinois NOW: "We made it clear at the time that we disagreed with the strategy ... Voting present doesn't provide a platform from which to show leadership and say with conviction that we support a woman's right to choose and these bills are unacceptable."

Women in New Hampshire were given a choice between two candidates, one of whom played it safe on reproductive issues and another who was more firmly committed to their cause. In an Irish state like New Hampshire with a strong Irish-American matriarchy tradition, it was up to Obama and Axelrod to realize that they were going to have to make an extra out reach to women voters to reassure them.

Or, look at it this way. The memo about Obama’s “present” votes was accurate and let women make up their own minds. The “Race Memo” which someone within the Obama camp tried to distribute to the press to convince people that the Clintons were racists contained three lies. If that someone was truly a member of the Obama camp and not an RNC mole doing a Nixonian dirty trick, then this was an Obama dirty trick besides which the New Hampshire dirty trick looks pretty tame. And if the RNC has infiltrated the Obama camp to the point that they are able to generate stuff like this, what other damage have they caused to the primary?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html

Hillary Moves in Mysterious Ways

Forget about why God lets bad things happen to good people. The question today is why does Hillary conduct dirty tricks that smear herself? Why does she do dirty deeds that only cause her to lose votes and poll points? Is it that Sybil personality that the press is so fond of talking about? Or is she trying to steal Obama’s “victimhood” a complaint I do not hear as much anymore now that he is the front runner? Is she some kind of leather fetishist?

1, 11, 12, 14, 16 above are all examples of “dirty tricks” that hurt Hillary. Since dirty tricks by definition must hurt one's opponent, these can not be Clinton dirty tricks. If they even represent dirty tricks, someone else pulled them.

Here are some more that were mentioned.

19. Public defender for rapist. Somehow I can not see a younger but still devious Hillary saying to herself “I am going to show my political opponents! I am going to get this rapist off and steal the White House by winning all the sex offender votes!" What are people here thinking?

20. Appearing on the ballot in Michigan. That only hurt Hillary in Iowa where she came in third. You want the real scoop on that?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/top-democrats-pull-from-michigan/

From the NYTs. Hillary, who was leading in Michigan and Dodd, who was not, said that the Dems were hurting themselves in the General Election if they snubbed Michigan. Obama, Edwards and Richardson who were going to lose anyway, bowed to pressure from New Hampshire and Iowa, states they had a better chance of winning and got off the ballot. One blogger in Iowa claims to have heard from members of several Democratic candidates’ camps that the last three got together and decided that if they all got off and left only Hillary on, it would take away the “beauty pageant win” effect from her and would cost her votes in Iowa. So, people who got off the ballot in Iowa were doing themselves a favor by courting extra votes in Iowa and New Hampshire. Since no rule called for anyone to get off a ballot, there is no dirty trick here unless someone can actually prove a conspiracy to leave Hillary on by herself, but we should probably let that sleeping dog lie, in order to avoid pissing off the voters of Michigan anymore than they already are. They may have to vote for Obama this fall.

21. Popular perception that Hillary is a liar. The press and the RNC have attempted to portray Clinton as a liar since the 1990s. The Obama camp started in on the Sniper-gate emails even while Obama was saying in public that he wanted no “distractions” this year. Hillary has not been trying to create the impression that she is a liar as some kind weird dirty trick against someone else. Other people are trying to smear her.

22. Delaying the release of her tax returns and then complaining that Obama did not release his. I guess you could lump in releasing all her papers only to find out that Obama has no papers. As I mentioned above, one of the dirtiest tricks the Republicans played on the Clintons in the 90s was sending Dan Burton after then with his unending requests for documents. Every time a document request is made, attorneys have to be consulted to look through them to make sure that no information is released about third parties. National security has to be considered in some cases. You can not just hand them over. It takes a lot of work. The Obama camp knows this. So they can make their demand for 1000s of pages and then keep demanding and demanding, acting as if the other party must be hiding something, because they did not turn it all over right away.

And then, when it is Obama’s turn to play, he says “Sorry, I don’t have any.”

We are supposed to believe that it is a dirty trick for the Clinton’s to ask but it is not a dirty trick for Obama to ask. It is a dirty trick for the Clintons to delay but not a dirty trick for Obama to refuse. You know, an uninterested third party might say that it is a dirty trick to be Hillary Clinton

23. Lawsuit in California: The Clintons are having themselves sued for sympathy so that they can claim that Obama or the RNC is behind it? Is that what you are saying? So that means that the Rezko trial is actually an Obama sympathy dirty trick from his side? He arranged to have his pal tried right now so that he could get some victim points? By claiming that either Hillary or the Republicans are behind it?

24. Lied about sniper fire. You are missing a basic point about dirty tricks. They are meant to tar an opponent. It is not a dirty trick to say “I am a neurosurgeon” when you are only a chiropractor. That is only a dumb lie. It is a dirty trick to spread a lie through the press that your opponent, who really is a neurosurgeon, failed his medical boards and is practicing without a license. So, even if Hillary had declared “I am the Pope” that would not make her a dirty trickster. It would make her delusional. She was never running for president of “able to leap through sniper fire”. Neither is Obama. She was talking about her ability to help negotiate an end to genocide in the Balkans and peace in Northern Ireland, all of which were well documented---and all of which the press (including KO) and the Obama camp managed to obscure with Sniper-gate.

25. Geraldine Ferraro: Ferraro was a major embarrassment to the Clinton camp. Obama just loved that one. I will bet he raised lots of money on poor old Geraldine. That was not a dirty trick. That was Clinton being stabbed in the back by an old feminist icon that she then had to go out and apologize for (she did apologize for her, I remember). I also remember that KO had one of his special comments demanding that Clinton denounce Ferraro as a human being but when Obama said that he could not renounce Wright as a human being, KO was cool with that. Even though both of them had the same reason for what they did---they were products of an older, angrier time. KO still has that special comment up on his site. Now that is a low blow.

26. Bill Clinton sleeping in MLK Jr’s Church. How does this hurt Obama? It just makes Bill look old.

27. David Schuster and “Pimping.” Guys, he called the Clintons pimps and their daughter (by inference) a slut and you call that a Clinton dirty trick? Just last week MSNBC ran a front page piece about how some lesbian “grabbed Chelsea’s ass” on the street of Philly. I am sure you loved that, too. The RNC is about to run a racist attack ad on Obama. Image how you would feel if some idiot said “You are just playing a dirty trick on the RNC pretending to be outraged. Race does not really matter in 21st century America. You are just faking outrage in order to score political victim points.” Of course, NBC loved it that Obama supporters stood up for Schuster. They thought it was great that some Democrats as well as the typical right wing Hillary bashers could get into calling the Clintons “pimps”, too. But for heaven’s sake, how do you think that makes the Obama camp look to the rest of the country?

28. Bill Richardson saying “They think they have a sense of entitlement to the presidency.” He is on Obama’s side now. He speaks for Obama. He called the Clinton's names. He made them look bad. So, be careful what you call a dirty trick.

Everyone Campaigns When They Run For President

This stuff is not dirty tricks. This is just spin. Obama does it when he talks about why his health plan is really universal even though it isn't or why "present" votes are the same as pro-choice votes when they are not or how winning in red states matters more than blue states (when what really matters in winning in lots of states). And some of these "charges" are campaign positions that Clinton has taken, ways in which she has sought to distinguish herself from Obama on the issues. Or things she has done to raise money, like promote herself as a strong contender. We saw what happened to Edwards when it looked like he was sure to lose. I can not even take seriously claims that it is some kind of dirty trick for Hillary to still be in the race. That is called running for president. If the Super Delegates did not think she had a chance, they would have all endorsed Obama.

Rather than list them by number I will just summarize them. They include discussions of health care, social security, Iran policy, courting elderly voters, courting blue collar voters, courting Latino voters, courting Florida and Michigan voters, calling her 9 point something win in Pennsylvania a 10 point win (never mind that most of the press calls it that, too) , bragging about the good things that happened during Bill’s administration while not talking about bad stuff, meeting with Scaife, appearing on Fox, trying to appeal to Super Delegates by saying that she is most electable this fall, refusing to discuss her husband’s pardons, trying to appeal to voters who vote on defense issues (forget the hawk shit, this is a big economic issue for a lot of blue collar voters), criticizing Obama after he criticized the Clinton administration, saying that she has the foreign policy experience to defeat McCain in the fall election but Obama does not, voting for the Iraq War Resolution for pragmatic reasons (might be true, Obama might have taken his anti-war speech down from his site for pragmatic reasons, too. They are just politicians). “Ready from day one.” Shame on her for having a campaign slogan. Only dirty tricksters have those.

Being Hillary Clinton is a Dirty Trick

Or rather, being married to Bill Clinton is an unfair advantage. That is what a lot of people think. Face it. If Bill could run again, he would, and he would get the nomination in a heart beat and probably win two more terms. The GOP knew what they were doing when they passed the two term limit. No more popular presidents. Only weak Democrats and bastard Republicans.

Since Hillary Clinton is a hell of a woman, her presidency will not be a Bill Clinton presidency---but everyone knows that he is there behind her, giving her advice and encouragement. And when she talks about the accomplishments of their administration it strikes Obama supporters as unfair. So, everything Bill Clinton says is a lie is one of the charges. And Hillary is not taking responsibility for all the negatives of the Clinton years. And Clinton is trying to protect his wife—that perfectly normal instinct becomes a “dirty trick” in this situation when he makes an excuse for her sniper story. Bill’s pardons become “dirty tricks” if they help Hillary out politically now. The one nasty, dirty thing that Bill Clinton said was to remind voters that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina after Obama’s win. For that, Hillary put him on a leash (you can not reject or denounce your husband and thank god KO did not do a special comment demanding that she do so). However, keep in mind that Obama had claimed that the Clinton years did not produce any transformative change like the Reagan years:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/17/obamas_reagan_comparison_spark_1.html

I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times...I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.

While it was John Edwards who jumped on those remarks at the time, you know that Bill Clinton had to be fuming. The Clinton era prosperity is one of the best arguments for kicking out the GOP and replacing them with the Democrats this election in order to get the economy back in shape. And here Obama was saying that a Republican was better at bringing change than the Clintons. If Reagan was good at bringing change, then why not the “maverick” McCain? The Obama camp gets all hot and bothered about Hillary’s commander in chief remark, but his own Reagan remark is much more likely to be quoted by Republicans who love Reagan and who could easily convince themselves that a “straight shooter” like McCain could lead the country in a new direction. I expect that remark was still on his mind when he said what he did about Jesse Jackson.

There has been a lot of macho grunting this election. Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama because he did not like Hillary’s unflattering comparison of JFK and LBJ. But out of that whole list of over 100, I would say that there might be a dozen example of below the belt politics and no solid examples of either Nixonian or Rovian dirty tricks played by the Clinton campaign.

That is not to say that no one is playing Rovian dirty tricks. Mostly they are coming from Karl Rove and his right wing toadies. And they are all designed with one purpose in mind, making Rush Limbaugh's dream come true.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/15980105/detail.html

I have been warning people at DU about this for--what?---six months now? The RNC under Karl Rove is all over this primary. The one doing the Rovian dirty tricks is Rove with his merry band of pranksters and his faithful little media whores. He has got people on internet sites dancing on his puppet strings. Democrats are so confused that they will tell you now that Bush is no longer the enemy, Hillary is. America meet your past and future.

[Egnever]

1. I hope you didnt spend all day on that

I stopped reading at

"I expected more substance."

[cornermouse]

6. I doubt anyone expected you to read it.

Reading it might have interfered with your tunnel vision.

[chimpymustgo]

57. Unfortunately, it is a LOT for some people to absorb and understand. Try to read small sections.

It's really good and thought provoking. Great post.

[lefty2000]

156. No Problem

McCamy Taylor types as fast as she talks.

[bluetrain]

2. Great post. Thanks.

[judasdisney]

3. It's too bad she's defensive about being labelled "dirty trickster" vs Obama

but she'll never be accused of "dirty tricks" toward McCain or any Republican.

I HATE DLC Democrats who spend ten times their attack-energy on other Democrats, but who tell us that the Republican opponent would make a better president than their Democratic challenger for the party nomination.

That's sick.

[johnnydrama]

4. look at what they all say.

And i've seen it more and more lately. Obama is the guy who said he was a different kind of politics, we never said we were, so whatever we do, no matter how low, is fine.

[papau]

125. Obama says Mc -via Reagan comment - better on economy than Bill - and that doesn't bother you?

[judasdisney]

174. Huh?

Obama said "Mc" (McCain?) is better on the economy than Bill Clinton? Via Reagan comment?

First, Obama said that both Reagan and Clinton were bad for unions -- true.

Second, where in my comment does it say anything about Obama?

I'm an Edwards supporter, go back and look at my very first comments on DU.

Third, I prefer Obama over Clinton but in light of Obama's recent bullshit comments on Hugo Chavez -- that he's a "dictator" -- Obama is now equally full of shit as Hillary. Fuck them both.

Whereas Clinton supporters are such crybaby game-players that everyone who hates Hillary therefore must support Obama -- sorry, nope. But I will say that Clinton supporters are still bigger assclowns and crack-smokers who refuse to be honest about their own candidate, so utterly "victimized" and full of entitlement, that even though I can no longer support Obama who appears to hate Latin American democracies like Venezuela, nevertheless Obama's nowhere near the same league of traitor as Hillary DLC Clinton.

And with each selective blind-eye Hillary supporter I encounter who thinks she is a victim -- I just want to flee this wasteland and never speak my mother tongue again. Get me the Christ out of this doomed (compliments of the Neocons and the upcoming Hillary presidency, because she'll backstab whoever she must to win it, and she shall win it) shithole.

[cornermouse]

5. Great point by point refutation of the accusations.

You did good.

That "Reagan years" comment by Obama got my attention when I first heard of it. I have only bad memories of the Reagan years. His policies did great harm to my family and the idea that anyone would see anything that positive about his presidency is alarming.

[dbmk]

18. And you obviously did nothing to educate yourself on what he actually said

He recognized Reagans ability to rally more than 50+1 of the americans behind a vision and change the United States path in history.
But he also clearly objected, and has done so since, to what Reagan did with that ability.

There is no inherent positive in being transformative as he called him. But you can't deny that Reagan was that.

Is source critique a foreign concept?

[cornermouse]

24. I repeat.

The idea that anyone could see anything positive in the Reagan years is alarming. The possibility that Obama thinks he can mimic Reagan is also alarming.

[cali]

32. then you must have great problems with hill's repeated

praise of Reagan and Reagan policies. She did it during the last debate re SS. Obama analyzed Reagan's electoral success and expressed a desire to build a coalition in that manner, albeit one with very different policy and political goals.

[cornermouse]

40. If she said that then yes, I would.

By the way, where's a link?

addition: Umm hmm. No link. Orwell, who I don't care for but was being too polite to say, is pulled from your hip pocket as a reference while ignoring the fact that journalism has changed during the time periods that I mentioned and once again, reality is suspended in order to push an agenda.

[papau]

127. nonsense - he knew the implication - and the dissing of Bill was for a reason

[papau]

128. On Social Security there is no need for any change per proj 3 of the Trustees - so Obama has his

head up his butt re policy - just as he has on Health - which we now learn will not have a bill proposed by Obama - he will just encourage congress to hold hearings.

And this con artist wants to build a coalition by doing nothing not approved by the GOP

No wonder many would rather have McCain's experience rather than a two faced Obama. I'll still vote Obama - but I find it impossible to get many seniors to trust him.

[dbmk]

67. Then I repeat:

He wasn't being positive about the Reagan years.

He wasn't saying that it was good that Reagan was transformational. Only that he was. And that he was hoping for a transformation of a similar strength - albeit in a completely different direction.

[papau]

129. I repeat - the only point Obama wanted to leave was Bill was not that good

[dbmk]

148. As far as transformation goes

..the record on the senate and congress elections under Bill Clinton clearly speaks to how transformational Bill was. It doesn't take Barack Obama to make that clear.

[papau]

126. Obama is too smart to not know what he was implying - Mc will use it in general

[Number23]

7. Another cornea buster!

Brevity and conciseness are the friends of all writers! But I appreciate your obvious passion.

[cornermouse]

8. Not everyone operates on George Bush's IQ level.

She did good.

[Number23]

16. Check yourself before you... you know....

Not everyone operates on George Bush's IQ level.

Where did that come from and was it necessary? Why don't you at least wait for a good reason before you start trying to get ugly?

[Tyler Durden]

19. Deep breaths guys. We're all a little touchy.

Long and in depth.

A few of us who read and appreciate the level of analysis shown by McCamy Taylor have gotten sensitized to the "One Line Hit Job" this sort of good writing draws if it doesn't come from certain posters.

Note down the line the "...delusional..." and "...poster child..." one line hit jobs. Your's wasn't that sort of thing.

Deep breaths grasshoppers. The day is just starting.

[cornermouse]

21. I interpreted your statement to indicate your belief that the general public

has a limited ability to understand and no patience to take the time to read. I wasn't saying you had a limited IQ.

A point by point refutation of even a few of the allegations and exaggerations associated wtih this primary is not something that fits nice and neatly into the concise and brief box.

[cali]

28. You must think Orwell was as illiterate and stupid as bush is.

There is no better guide to political writing than Orwell. He had a positive horror of bludgeoning the reader with extraneous wordiness. His six rules are iconic- and as valuable today as when he wrote them some 60 years ago. My dear old dad- a terrific technical writer- if you enjoy reading on history and anthropology- would have said that the OP has loggorhea. That sums it up as well as anything.

i) Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

(ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do.

(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.

(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything barbarous.

[cornermouse]

34. What?

No loyalty test? No demand to know who I'm voting for?

Having gotten into the habit of reading old newspapers from the late 1800s and early 1900s while searching for obituaries, I had to notice that they didn't follow any of those rules and people were able to read and understand them just fine. Maybe the rules that you cite contribute to laziness and are a contributing reason as to how Bush got into the White House?

[cali]

44. lol. I've read a great deal from that period, being lucky

enough to own bound copies of the 19th century periodicals, Cornhill (British), The Strand Magazine (British) and Harper's (American). You are, quite simply, in error about political writing of the period. Both Cornhill and The Strand, aside from publishing fiction, published political writing. And so, of course, did Harper's. I suggest you read Orwell's entire essay on political writing. Look, it's very simple: Communicating effectively through the written word, takes discipline. It is not about using gratuitous words, little boxes or endless metaphors and similes that are not germane to the point you are trying to make. As Orwell said in another essay: The point is to make complex ideas understandable. That does not mean watering them down for the lazy or ill informed. To suggest that Orwell's rules about writing dumb things down, is to reveal a lack of knowledge as well as real intellectual sloppiness.

[cornermouse]

50. I'll admit I wasn't flying nearly as high as you.

I read papers from smaller more local areas and they were definitely wordy and acidic, leaning towards what I consider victorian. By the way, do you consider Dickens a political writer?

[cali]

56. more a social critic than political writer per say- though

the two often bleed into one another. In any case, it's not about using lots of words, it's about using as many as necessary without flooding your reader with extraneous words, or information that does not feed into your argument or analysis.

[cornermouse]

60. Dickens was guilty of using lots of extraneous words

as was the custom for that time period. For some reason that didn't appear to have harmed him.

[cali]

66. baloney.

first of all, although Dickens was certainly a writer of fiction who used a lot of words, I take profound issue with your casual declaration that he used extraneous words. Secondly, Dickens is celebrated for his fiction- not for his expository writing. One simply can't compare "Bleak House" with say, the political essays and columns by Howells. Again, expository writing and fiction are two very different forms. It's like comparing contact improv to classical ballet. Yeah, they're both forms of dance, but they're very different.

[lefty2000]

141. A Certain Vagueness Is Useful

when you wish to create an association in the mind of the reader between two different things. When W. spoke of "weapons of mass destruction," he could claim he was referring to poison gas, but when the listener hears "weapons of mass destruction" he thinks of The Bomb. That was intentional and a clear misuse of the language for political purposes.

[lefty2000]

140. I Could Not Decipher The Final Sentence

Was something inadvertently omitted?

[lefty2000]

139. Orwell's Rules

I have read "Politics and the English Language" as well as several of Orwell's other works. From his biography, it is clear that he was a man of courage, but in his writing, Orwell impressed me as a kind and gentle man in everything he did. He often tempered his criticism with a dose of humility. We could all do worse than to follow his example in our own writing.

[McCamy Taylor]

151. Cali, maybe Wallace Stevens says it more clearly than I have been able to.

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Poetry/Stevens/The_Idea_of_Order_at_Key_West.html

From The Idea of Order at Key West

It was her voice that made
The sky acutest at its vanishing.
She measured to the hour its solitude.
She was the single artificer of the world
In which she sang. And when she sang, the sea,
Whatever self it had, became the self
That was her song, for she was the maker. Then we,
As we beheld her striding there alone,
Knew that there never was a world for her
Except the one she sang and, singing, made.

Ramon Fernandez, tell me, if you know,
Why, when the singing ended and we turned
Toward the town, tell why the glassy lights,
The lights in the fishing boats at anchor there,
As the night descended, tilting in the air,
Mastered the night and portioned out the sea,
Fixing emblazoned zones and fiery poles,
Arranging, deepening, enchanting night.

[1monster]

120. Oops! How the heck did I translate George Bush into George Orwell?

Another case of "my mind took a short vacation and forgot to inform me that it was not in" or of ARADD (Age Related Attention Deficit Disorder). :blush:

[cornermouse]

152. Nope.

You just had more important things to think about. (insert picture of pretty flower here)

[1monster]

163. Done!

[cornermouse]

175. Thank you

That's a pretty flower. :D

[dailykoff]

9. Delusional from day one.

But I admire your typing skills. :)

[Tyler Durden]

12. One line hits are not refutation.

If you want to refute, cite evidence. If you don't agree, say so and why (no evidence needed), if you feel like name calling, go back to high school.

[Coexist]

55. Oh my goodness, the Reply police are here, now?

What's up with that?

[Tyler Durden]

72. ANOTHER one line hit job.

Don't you people get tired of this? No one thinks you're witty.

[Coexist]

77. You want more than one line on your odd lecturing of DUers to respond the way YOU have decided

that they should?

Really?

Fine, here goes:

This is an internet forum, with well over 100,000 members. Some of those members choose to spend hours crafting original OPs. They pick a position, do research to find that which supports their argument, and type, and retype their Post until they feel it says exactly what they wanted. Then they post it.

Some of those 100,000+ posters prefer to re-post articles, diaries, or blog entries that accurately reflect their views. Someone has already typed what they feel inside, so they choose to use that as an OP.

Some of those 100,000+ posters choose to post a stray thought that occurs to them as they are watching a news show.

All of these people are valid and valuable additions to DU. They are fellow Democrats who are allowed to express themselves however they choose, as long as they follow the rules posted by the Administrators of this site.

Some people read the OPs listed above and decide to respond with a refutation, a Kick and Recommend, appreciation, a well-thought out response, an insult or sarcasm. Some responses are paragraphs long with links, some are one or two words, and yes, some consist of only one line. It is their right to respond however they choose, as long as they follow the rules posted by the Administrators of this site.

You are allowed to see yourself as White Knight to McCamy Taylor, or self-styled "One Line Hit Job Policeman" if you want. And I am allowed to think that you are being a mixture of condescending, silly and militant when you do.

Happy now, officer?

[Tyler Durden]

87. Disrespect is disrespect.

Same as I wouldn't drop in an exacting analysis that you wrote with an "OH YEAH? Well so's your old man!", I would think that if YOU want that kind of respect, you wouldn't do it either.

Maybe at 55 I come from an era where I don't swear at people on the phone just because I'll never talk to them again, I assume that more than money, POLITENESS greases the wheels on which the world turns.

Again, if you had posted something you spent hours researching, and I disagreed with it, I would do you the common courtesy of not dropping in to call you delusional, or make any other "throwaway" comment. I'd just sigh and move on.

This is my reason for not reading certain posters here who have a large following, but I do not agree with. Firstly, I see no point in the debate because I won't change their mind, and at 55 time is to precious to waste. Most of the "ONE Hitters" read the headline, and drop in to pee on the parade. It's just a company I am suggesting you might not want to associate with.

Go ahead and tear the piece apart section by section if you so choose, but essential with editorial comment you set yourself up as a reviewer, and a one line negative review of an opus magnum makes the reviewer look shallow and silly.

Valid and valuable additions to discussions are well thought out, polite, and follow intellectual and logical process of refutation. These people may, in your opinion, make contributions of value somewhere else, but doing a "Drive-By Hit" is akin to stopping by the editorial office of a paper, dropping one's pants, and defecating as social comment.

Personally, I feel slightly dirty in that company. One Hit Drive by slams are by nature, condescending, silly, and militant. Is it wrong to point this out?

[Coexist]

91. you are welcome to feel however you want, but if you post here

you will get one-line responses from some.

"but doing a "Drive-By Hit" is akin to stopping by the editorial office of a paper, dropping one's pants, and defecating as social comment. "

I heartily disagree with this. This is DU, not The Brookings Institute.

I'm 41 and I believe in free speech. Its not my place to instruct people how to Reply. If they can type, own a computer, are a Democrat, and sign up, it is their right to respond to OP in any way they see fit. Period. (as long as they are following DU Rules)

I go to several sites a day, but I choose to post here, because I love the beautiful mess that DU is.

My amazement at your comments were not because you did it once or twice, but because you seemed intent on calling out every single poster that chose to respond with snark or a non-in-depth analysis.

[Tyler Durden]

96. Because someone behaves foolishly, they get a "pass" because someone noticed it before?

Polite discourse was, in the past, one of the hallmarks of this site.

Yes, it's been a "beautiful mess," but it's at least been a COMRADELY mess. Now sniping and pot-shots are the rule of the day.

Just because I possess an alimentary canal is no carte blanche for me to PURPOSELY walk into the room where you are reading a book, stand next to you, and break wind.

I miss common courtesy. I suppose I'll not see it again in my lifetime.

[papau]

131. I strongly agree with your point -condescending is a word I would use for many Obama fans on DU

[jettison]

121. I'd like to point out....

... that your post has one line.

<brought to you by the "one line" police>

[papau]

130. So we conclude Obama fans can't comprehend - just Hate anything not Obama

[zabet]

10. k and r

Bookmarked for later reference.

Thanks McCamy you are a rare jewel.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

11. "He has got people on internet sites dancing on his puppet strings."

You seem to be the poster child for such antics...

[Tyler Durden]

13. You know, you just make yourself look silly.

Line by line evidence and link is shown deep and in depth. You drop in for a name calling and a one line hit job. Do you really want to represent your point of view in such a manner?

If the opposing view wants to refute, then do so. If not, you just make yourself another facet of the problem.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

15. Voluminous citations and an ability to format does not help a

non sequitur. No refutation is necessary.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

17. lots of words = impress lots of people

no need to read them all, its like watching cable news 24 X 7 it must be true, its written.....

[Tyler Durden]

27. I'll bet you "rec" every single NanceGreggs and Madfloridian "Journal Job" as gospel.

If you don't want to read, go watch TV. It's not a sin or a crime, but "...no need to read them all..." is what some half-assed newspaper reviewer who used to do OBITS would write.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

31. No fair picking on Mr. Hiaasen. n/t

[Tyler Durden]

39. More referring to that fool who reviewed a CD without listening to it.

All over the news about 3 weeks back. Turned out to be excellent publicity for the band in question.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

48. Well. Since I have regained your attention...

The premise of the OP you are defending, as I understand it, is that Hillary is being unfairly accused of "dirty politics". Yes? No?

Point 1. McCamy attempts to saddle DUers with the inability to "not comprehend the willingness of the press to attack Hillary Clinton for no reason whatsoever". This supposed position is (falsely) supported by an article dated 04/23/08 wherein she states that "The Press Accused Hillary of Running a Dirty Tricks Campaign Before There Was a Campaign".

Please define how this NYT's article can substantiate a claim that we were all attacking her before the campaign ever started with the publishing date that is cited.

[Tyler Durden]

71. The NY TIMES "Opinion" piece refers to long-standing attacks.

It's the content, not the date of the piece.

[papau]

135. reading comprehension on DU by Obama fans - media matters is the source

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801110014

[Tyler Durden]

47. Googled that. Might have to read some of his stuff.

Sounds odd. I like odd. My extremely precocious 12 year old daughter likes odd, too.

Did he used to write obits?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

53. It is one of his professions claimed in his novels.

He is a laugh out loud novelist. In the vein of John Kennedy Toole and Vonnegut.

[Tyler Durden]

64. Thanks for the heads up.

Now let's shake hands and agree to disagree. Politely.

[SwampG8r]

92. start

with "skin tight"or "double whammy"
of those 2 i think skin tight may be a better read
read either one and in a year you will be like me
you will have every book hes written signed and on the shelf

and for an in depth look at florida culture allow me to recommend "lucky you"

and the OP is crap

[Tyler Durden]

99. I'll do that.

I collect Richard Preston first editions in hard cover. "First Light" was particularly inspiring, but I do love the softcover world as well. I will take your recommendations.

And you're entitled to your opinion, as sparse and unfortunately worded as it is. I think both candidates deserve a political version of a good spanking and getting their mouths washed out with soap.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

43. the OP sucks. If its going to be long and rambling, it needs to tell up front what the point is

If the OP can't incite interest in the leading paragraphs, people just won't read it.

Thats why they're called leading paragraphs.

The OP fails in that respect.

[Tyler Durden]

46. It's not LITERATURE.

It's an exercise in claim and evidence. It's not JOURNALISM or OP ED.

Different category. As I said, if you don't want the fare, then don't order it. There are other items on the menu for all pallets.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

49. you're right, its not journalism, and not an OpED? I guess its

word soup.

Nice picture of Hillary's running mate at the bottom of the OP though.

[Tyler Durden]

52. You really ARE trying to make friends and influence people, aren't you?

Why are you even on this thread? Pot stirring is very unattractive.

And no, my vote won't be counted, as I'm from Michigan.

[SwampG8r]

93. nope not literature

just propaganda
and its
palate
a pallet is where you pile crap to ship it

[Tyler Durden]

100. I'm at work we use a lot of "pallets" and spell check is not a sophisticated subroutine.

Propaganda has no documented and provable support. This does.

Likely, an Obama Supporter could do a similar job on why he has been wrongly used by the press for some of his issues as well. That might be a more scholarly approach than "...just propaganda..."

Doesn't convince anyone, but if it makes you feel good...

[SwampG8r]

109. so when you

referenced "a menu for all pallets" you meant actual pallets of menus?
not a menu for all palates?

[Tyler Durden]

112. Now you've gone and made me chuckle.n/t

[SwampG8r]

173. there ya go

no charge

[usrbs]

80. Thanks for the literary criticism.

Now that that's out of the way, why don't you try to actually read the post, and then perhaps you could offer rebuttals of the actual content, or perhaps, even change your viewpoint, however minusculely.

[jettison]

124. When you write something that long...

... you are being demanding of everyone's time. You are saying "my words are so important that I want you to read A LOT of them, and in lieu of everyone else's words". There is a time to be verbose, and a time to be succinct. This poster is always needlessly verbose.

[planetc]

143. Taylor's posts are long, but not needlessly so

I have been following Ms Taylor's journal for several weeks now, and as a daily reader of the New York Times, and a few other sources of published prose, I want to register my opinion that Taylor's prose is of very good quality; it is publishable; it is always highly informative and frequently entertaining. Taylor writes more substantively and gracefully than Maureen Dowd. I also taught the dreaded college course "Freshman Composition" for several years a long time ago, and want to compliment Taylor on offering excellent examples for all of her main theses and arguing points. The great test of any piece of prose, from one sentence to five hundred pages, is whether its major assertions can be illustrated by concrete examples. If it can, then offer the examples. If it can't, perhaps that's not what you really wanted to say?

If the New York Times had any political integrity at all, which it does not, and any taste in prose, which it has little of, it would hire Taylor and pay her to inform its readers about the swamp of dishonest rhetorical devices used by most of the televised pundits and by many writers at the Times itself.

When you are reading Taylor, you are reading some of the best analysis of the political scene available anywhere. And you are reading it for free. Because it does not appear on Salon or in the Times does not diminish its quality.

I, for one, am grateful for her excellent research, her tireless survey of the MSM's many sins, and if this beautifully expressed research were to by published in a book, I would buy it and recommend it.

Of course, I like reading, and don't mind reading, say, 2-3 pages of prose if it repays the time.

[jettison]

150. I appreciate the very thoughtful response.

I agree that she is an excellent writer. It's not a debatable point. However, she has a slant with each thread. She's a Clintonite (not that there is anything wrong with that), and at this point, she's posting mostly to an Obama-laden board. Unlike a lot of posters on either side of the argument, she does attempt to bring all sides into the fray on occasion, and for that she is to be commended. But on a messageboard like this, where there are a LOT of quality posts and threads to wade through, the length distracts after a certain tipping point.

Everyone's time is valuable. If you're a Clintonite trying to either defend the actions of Hillary Clinton to a bunch of people who have presumably already made up their minds about the election, or else persuade contrarians to your point of view, sometimes it's better to weigh on the side of succintness. I'm betting that the audience that she's really trying to reach are those that don't currently agree with her, not those whom she already has throwing out the pats on the back and the "kicks".

As is evident by lots of the response she receives on her threads, most of those Obama folks just skip it after paragraph one because her premise already reads like propaganda to them. The debate between candidates is so heated now that it's not unlike a socialist attempting to infiltrate Freepersville and actually get something thoughtful out before being kicked out.

So if her point is to persuade, she's going to have a more receptive audience if she cuts her rhetoric at least in half. This isn't Salon or the NY Times. But if her aim is merely to recieve kudos from like-minded thinkers then she's spot on, and close to untouchable.

[planetc]

158. But she's not a "Clintonite"

If you have read her posts, she has done a thorough job on the MSM's various attacks on Obama, too. What Taylor is is a scholar, and an entirely civil one.

What if she is not trying to either "defend Clinton's actions", or "persuade contratians to her point of view"? What if she is trying to educate people? What if she is trying to show people how, and why, they're being manipulated? What if she does not wear a football uniform, but merely carries a laser pointer in her hand, to illuminate the tactics of the enemies of both Obama and Clinton, the MSM?

[jettison]

176. It that were true...

... then it would be fantastic. I just don't believe that to be true, unfortunately. This is no knock on her. She's a fantastic, thoughtful writer who just so happens to have, in my opinion, an agenda. I never claimed that she wasn't civil so there's no need to air that defense. I do, however, believe that she defends in some cases when it's entirely unnecessary to do so. If someone has lied, then they have lied. If someone has spun, then they have spun. It's polyanish to believe that we're not dealing with politicians, both Clinton and Obama alike. The premise of this particular OP doesn't ring true for me. For you it does, and that's fine that you've gotten so much out of it. I'll also add that other threads she's started I've agreed with. In short, she's an admirable person, but I don't always agree with her takes.

[Tyler Durden]

23. I'm not going to play logical falacy tag with you, because from the first one you cite....

...you're showing you don't know how they work.

Obviously you didn't read it. Fine. But don't pretend you did.

I read the NON-OPINION pieces from both sides and I check evidence. This one is mostly toward the middle.

Define your "does not follow." I don't see it.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

30. You tell me you will not listen to me because I do not understand the mechanics of logic.

Then you ask me to define my application of "non sequitur". I am in a quandary.

Should I take the time to delineate my position, or, will anything I convey be preemptively dismissed?

[Tyler Durden]

41. Oh come on.

You obviously hold an opinion that does not bear refutation. Again, that's no sin. But to just throw out "non sequitur" without showing that claim or evidence which does not support a premise is not refutation.

Let's just shake hands and go about our day. It's FRIDAY and I'm going to the Symphony tomorrow, and I'm not even pissed off that the adhesive didn't hold the tile in the kitchen and I'll have to do it all over. Happy Happy, Joy Joy. I'm determined to have a nice day, and I sincerely and truly wish you the same. Really.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

58. Con mucho gusto.

May you have a fine weekend.

[Tyler Durden]

89. Via Con Dios, Kammerad.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

26. watch out, more bosnian sniper fire!

duck, I've been hit twice now!!!!

[usrbs]

78. Or maybe it's that you have none. n/t

[Shakespeare]

104. Precisely. n/t

[papau]

132. it doesn't follow"? - No refutation is because it is logical and correct history -hurts doesn't it?

[jettison]

122. Sometimes...

The length of a reply is in direct proportion to the worthiness of the post. If you don't think much of the post, you won't bother much with your reply. And believe it or not, "one line" does not have to equal "hit job". They are not synonymous. If someone writes a book worth of pure drivel, and you don't respond in similar length is that a knock on you? Or, are you just entirely bored with the sentiment of the post?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

14. poor Hillary, the innocent victim of sniper fire again

poor poor Hillary....

[Tyler Durden]

22. We need a "smilie" for the "one line hit job."

Either show one single solitary misstatement or misquote, or see yourself as guilty of the same tactics you decry.

The "Hit Job", especially the unsupported one liner, is the sign of a frustrated and lazy mind. If you actually READ the damned thing you'll see it's pretty even handed and points out Clinton Campaign warts as well.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

25. if the "damned thing" was less rambling I'd read the entire thing

but its one of those padded jobs that goes by the philosophy of quantity verses quality.

[Tyler Durden]

29. Again, you obviously didn't read it.

Not one ramble. If you don't agree, fine. Then say "I don't agree" and leave it at that.

But the hit jobs read like fare from the "site which shall not be named," NOT IN CONTENT, BUT STYLE.

You don't have to agree with it, but if you want to review, you should read in depth. That's why I stopped commenting on opinion pieces, because it is shallow to comment without study.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

37. I didn't want to have to say this but....

there's a golden rule to journalism - you get to the point up front
then you add your layers.

The op doesn't get to the point up front, it reads like some sort of painful
trip through the wilderness, rambling on and on, barely running out of gas.

I didn't want to have to say this - but the OP is BORING and FAILS TO GET TO THE POINT.

ITS UP TO THE WRITER TO EARN THE INTEREST OF THE READER. THE OP FAILS

[cornermouse]

42. Then why are you here?

[Tyler Durden]

45. Then don't read it.

The poster is a PHYSICIAN, not a JOURNALIST.

You have a bias, and want to be GRABBED. So don't read it. Then again, I read astrophysics and membrane theory for laughs, and lots of people would use that instead of sleeping pills. To each his own. But this isn't about STYLE, it's a research piece. I don't read a paper in "LANCET" and say how "...it MOVED me..."

Research items by scientists or analysts do not have a "boring" box to check.

[cali]

51. it's a poor piece of writing.

as you point out, it's quantity over quality. One should ask oneself: What is the author trying to prove and did she effectively prove it? To that the answer must be no. The author is trying to prove that the charge that Hillary Clinton has played dirty politics, is entirely false. She omits the evidence that she has engaged in some of that, and shifts the blame almost entirely on the media. The funny thing is I think she does have a good point to make, but she's so invested in her defense of Clinton, that she's unable to step out of that role. And the logorrhea that the OP is afflicted with, is a tremedous distraction.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

54. Well said.

[wrando]

68. critics?

The one liner kings and queens of DU are now journalism critics. You are without a doubt the most lame group of advocates I've ever encountered. I lived through, and was part of the 60's movement, and we were involved, and some of us have the scars to show for it. You people believe in a man that you know little about, and are afraid of the truth. I'm not saying Obama couldn't become a great man, but he certainly has no claim to that mantle yet.

bill from ct

[cali]

70. one liners? try again. I've written several posts in this thread

and they certainly are not one liners. I don't post one line threads either. I do write as concisely as possible, but even then, I sometimes get (justly) criticized for being too wordy. I've been very specific about what I see as the problems with this OP. Unlike you, I haven't merely called her lame, I've given examples of her misrepresentation and twisting.

I don't believe in Obama, by the way. I support him. Having done my homework on his past and his policies, I know enough about him to feel comfortable supporting him. I'd never claim he's a great man.

Please shove your generalizations. They offer nothing.

cali from Vermont

[wrando]

81. you again?

If you had done your homework then point out the inaccuracies of the piece.

In general terms the Obama supporters that have skimmed this piece have simply thumbed their noses at the author.

you must do better

bill from ct

[cali]

85. I've done it. See post 62 for an example of one of the inaccuracies

emblematic of the OP. Don't like my criticism? I don't expect you to be able to follow it.

[wrando]

101. facts

You need facts. Facts are almost impossible to find on Buzzflash, it's all opinion, and it's all Obama.
On the once very good buzzflash site they have been to the crossroads.

Get something factual, not opinion.

Have a nice day

Bill from ct

[cali]

105. oh for pity's sake. Are you actually denying

that the Clinton campaign held this conference call in Feb pushing the Ayers story? It's up on youtube, there are dozens of links to the story. You are so pathetic.

[wrando]

106. it's a minor point

There can be some dispute on some of the facts in this piece on the margin, but you have hardly blown a hole on the concept of his post.

you're clinging and you know we shouldn't cling

bill from ct

[cali]

107. it's your opinion that it's a minor point, dear

not a FACT. I recognize that you have trouble distinguishing the two. The fact is that there are lots more "errors" of this kind in the OP. Now, sorry, but I really can't be bothered with your one liners. You never post anything but. I know you have trouble writing. Why not take a course and improve your skills?

[wrando]

113. wrong again

when I have the time I post

about those lots more errors?

skills can be useful

bill from ct

[cali]

116. I'll get to more errors

though I'll do it for the fun of deconstructing, not to prove anything to you. I suspect that the only thing we have in common is that I grew up in CT. We are not going to see eye to eye.

[wrando]

118. eye to eye

Do you see eye to eye on everything with anybody?

I doubt it, it would be rare.

This is just politics.

Bill from ct

[cali]

119. I said I suspect that you and I see eye to eye on virtually nothing

got it?

[wrando]

145. narrow minds

It's a pity when some peoples thinking is so narrow that no bridge can be built.

Your hero BO says that's not the way


more errors?
I didn't think so

Bill from ct

[cali]

167. I only have one living politician who I hold in very high esteem

and it's not Obama, sorry. And yes, you do have a disgustingly narrow mind. So sad.

welcome to my ignore, bore.

[wrando]

172. might I ask who that is?

you should try and be nice

even if someone annoys you

bill from ct

[SwampG8r]

97. dec 06

obama needs a food taster
i cant find any confirmation that was said in 06 but plenty it was said in 08
i think the poster is playing fast and loose with his dates

[McCamy Taylor]

154. Remember "The Death of the Author"? The Barthes essay I asked you to read last time?

Here is the link again.

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/barthes06.htm

When we play critic and attempt to pigeonhole a piece by saying "What did the author mean?" we deny ourselves the chance to read on multiple layers. Barthes believed that reading could be a liberating experience if the reader allowed himself to interpret the text as he or she wanted and not as the imagined author dictated.

I sort of like the "one line hit job" comments. Taken separately they do not mean much, but when you view them together, they form a complex dialog.

As I mentioned in my notes after my piece "The Appeal of Hillary Clinton" I rarely have more than a vague idea of what I intend to write before I sit down at the keyboard. I asked for a list of Hillary's dirty tricks because I wanted to know what things she and her campaign had done that had offended so many people. I read the list, and as is normal for most people, I began to put the responses into categories, like "Things that were done by other people TO Hillary" and "Things that are actually Hillary's negatives" and "Things that give Hillary an unfair advantage that she can not help" This is analogous to someone reading a list of grocery items and thinking These are veggies, get these from the produce section. These are all in the dairy section. Get these in the frozen food section. That was a normal human response to any list. At that point, the thesis just sort of came to me---BEING Hillary was a dirty trick. Which is not what dirty trick really means.

That is my thought process. It is not me. I am a Buddhist so I can describe actions better than I can deal with absolutes. I believe in actions. I do no believe in absolutes. I do not believe that either Clinton or Obama is a better person/Senator/candidate. I believe that either would do a fine job as president. I believe that each of them is absolutely beloved by their respective bases and that both of them on the same ticket will mobilize every single Democrat who has registered to vote in the primaries and that this will ensure a Democratic victory this fall, no matter how many Republicans vote for McCain, because a high Democratic turn out ensures a Democratic victory. I believe that if either is left off the ticket, a portion of the Democratic base will stay home and that this will give the Republicans a chance. The fact that the RNC has gone into high gear divide and conquer mode tends to confirm my suspicions. They are afraid of the unity ticket. They want the Dems at each other's throats. It is good for Karl Rove's THE Math.

[lefty2000]

155. Why Are You So Obsessed By McCamy Taylor?

Are you afraid someone might believe her?

[papau]

133. Is reading hard for you?

[datopbanana]

20. when clinton is synonymous with corruption, yes.

[Tyler Durden]

35. ANOTHER one line hit job.

Do all of you really LIKE being part of the problem? Study and refute POLITELY and you get respect. Throw in your dogma as truth, and you get the respect it deserves, which is none.

Why do you bother? You don't read it, and then you don't do anything but exactly the same kind of thing shown in the piece.

[datopbanana]

153. CORRUPT. Hows a 1 word hit job do ya?

[McCamy Taylor]

157. The question should be "Why is Clinton synonymous with corruption?" Barthes would have had fun with

that one. He could have deciphered the myth in a few pages, because he was a master writer who knew how to tear apart the propaganda that the news media feeds us.

"Men does not have with myth a relationship based on truth but on use; they depoliticize according to their needs." That is from "Myth Today" the last essay in Mythologies

[datopbanana]

159. if only it was a myth.

[UALRBSofL]

33. McCamy as usual another great post.

However, their are too many simple minded people that use emotion to drive there logic and can't comprehend your posts. Reading comprehension is not for the simple minded.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

38. It's "their", btw.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

59. My bad.

I was pointing to "there logic"

[datopbanana]

160. hmmm kind of like the ppl who diss the bitter remarks and Wright.

[dbmk]

36. So Obama said something that was true about Reagan

.. (but not in it self positive as it is being laid out).

And then Bill has a right to be offended and try and paint Obama as a minority candidate?
(I don't think it was racism. But more a "Look at him. He won't ever make it". Playing and depending on a latent racism in society.)

And I find that there are tons of examples in the above where you basically ignore reality, and basically go "he did this, she did that. That makes it even" - without any reflection on whether "this" and "that" was right or wrong in it self.

Example:
"3. Bitter-gate: Again, Obama made these remarks which I am sure that he regrets. The words are newsworthy, because they revealed a side of the Senator that people had not seen before. Many people at DU also revealed a side of themselves which they had not revealed before by agreeing with what he said. If he could unsay them, I am sure that he would. The best he can do now, is try to unsay them with spin. Clinton can not be accused of dirty tricks for getting in the way of his spin. She is not his mother nor his campaign manager."

She cannot be excused for calling him an elitist? And he can only unsay them with spin? How about with the truth?!
A truth that Hillary KNOWINGLY overlooked and exploited for everything she could wring from it.

Its like having your victim make the bullet and then blame him for being shot with it.


"22. Delaying the release of her tax returns and then complaining that Obama did not release his. I guess you could lump in releasing all her papers only to find out that Obama has no papers. As I mentioned above, one of the dirtiest tricks the Republicans played on the Clintons in the 90s was sending Dan Burton after then with his unending requests for documents. Every time a document request is made, attorneys have to be consulted to look through them to make sure that no information is released about third parties. National security has to be considered in some cases. You can not just hand them over. It takes a lot of work. The Obama camp knows this. So they can make their demand for 1000s of pages and then keep demanding and demanding, acting as if the other party must be hiding something, because they did not turn it all over right away."

Obamas tax return is 2 pages give or take, and was issued long before Hillary released hers. I highly doubt hers is 1000 pages. We are talking about papers that have already been filed and are documents in the public possession. If lawyers have to look that over, you have a problem. Edit: To that extent at least.

[Iceburg]

61. K&R:Thank you again for your sage perspective /nt

[cali]

62. One clear example of the OP's obfuscation and misrepresentation

"8. Ayers. Again, this is something that ABC brought up. And they brought it up in such a way that Clinton almost had to respond, as the Senator from New York State, which makes her the Senator from 9/11. People in NYC will never “move on” the way that the rest of the country have. If she moves into the White House one day and starts getting letters from around the country and not just from constituents in NY, her bias may change, but for now you can expect her to stay something of a hawk when it comes to 9/11, because of the WTC. It is what her voters still talk to her about."

Yes, ABC brought it up. what the OP neglects to say, is outside of the debate, the Clinton camp has been pushing the Ayers bullshit, for months- since at least Feb. 19 when Wolfson held a conference call with reporters and pushed it hard. This has been wicxdely reported. It is flat out disgustingly dishonest to write what the OP wrote about Ayers. It's nothing but slimy propaganda tarted up and buried at the bottom of her mountain of meaningless words.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/053


There are so many more egregious examples of misrepresentation and propagandistic bullshit in this tower of words. I'll give further examples in other posts.

[wrando]

63. excellent

very well put together, and accurate

I'm a couple of years older than you, but I remember Nixon and Watergate.

Now that was a gate, Nixon was let off the hook far too easily.

The problem with your piece is too much detail, facts depress people, they would rather stick their tongues out at you than educate themselves, more the pity.

Bill from ct

[JohnnyLib2]

65. Thank you! Fervent O supporters on DU won't be swayed, but

this will help the rest of us better understand events and be able to talk with undecided voters in the next several months.

Parts of this OP reminded me that several RW relatives have basically made the same negative comments about HRC since sometime in the 90s. No evidence of any thought has appeared in all these years!

[cali]

69. Supporters of propaganda and those easily impressed by verbosity

and great formatting will, like the emperor be deeply impressed. Those of us who actually read the entire thing and understand a bit about what expository writing should do, will see it for what it is. And here's the funny thing, I don't entirely disagree that Hillary has been piled on for how she's conducted her campaign, but I hate faux intellectual pretentiousness and loggorhea with a passion. And I'm none to fond of the OP's whitewashing and misrepresentation.

[JohnnyLib2]

114. You sound like a member of my dissertation committee!

But my area is not expository writing; human behavior is. This OP has examples of attitude-shaping which may be textbook examples in years ahead, IMO.

:hi:

[papau]

134. whitewashing and misrepresentation? - can you cite even one? -or do you just have an Obama fan voice

[WinkyDink]

73. Nope; not gonna do it. Too frickin' long.

[cali]

88. hey, long can be good

this just isn't. I read the whole wearily long, verbose, dishonest... thing. You aren't missing anything astoundingly inciteful or revealing. Shorter Taylor: Hillary has been absolutely above board and honorable. It's all lies and the mean MSM and Obama. I'm much smarter than the rest of you, and I can confuse and mislead quite a few by throwing a lot of words together.

[MessiahRp]

102. That's pretty much what I got out of it

and in all honesty I wish I had the 10 minutes back I spent reading and re-reading it to make sure I wasn't missing anything.

Other candidates have played dirty is the whole, "those other kids did it too" type of blame passing that people make when they know they did something wrong.

It's not that she "played dirty" it's that she became Rove.

That is what is unacceptable. In our party primary for anyone to take the tactics of our election stealing, voter disenfranchising, swiftboating, lying enemy and accept them as above the board means that you have no loyalty to party oncesoever.

To me, Hillary has shown those colors repeatedly and should not only be ousted from this race but also from this party. Lest we have another Lieberman on our hands.

Rp

[smiley_glad_hands]

74. Hilliary pushing the Wright and "electability" issues like a fervant repug are enough for me.

I still would like someone to explain to me why a dem would attack another dem with these racial undertones?

[Evergreen Emerald]

75. "pushing?" She answered ONE question when asked.

Versus Obama who bombarded the press with negative e-mail wondering

1. why they were not airing stories on Bill Clinton's infedelitiy
2. On Bosnia

this is just for starters. To Pretend that Obama is a different kind of campaigner is to ignore reality.

[smiley_glad_hands]

115. When did he start using rightwing frames to define Hilliary? Never, unlike her. eom

[Evergreen Emerald]

146. From the beginning he used the right-wing talking points...I am

always amazed at Obama supporter's memory.

[usrbs]

76. Excellent work. Thankyou! n/t

[madmom]

79. Yep if it's not 30 seconds sound bytes it's to long, truth be damned!

[cali]

84. no. expository writing can be long and still tight and well crafted

this is neither. It's not word soup, but it's excess verbosity, misreprsentation of factual information, slanted pov, and masses of extraneous filler material, make it a poor example of the craft. This is an Emperor's New Clothes piece of writing Lots of words, signifying... almost nothing. In fact, here's a little challenge for you or anyone who thought this OP was great: In your own words, please tell me what you believe the OP's main points were.

[madmom]

94. In my own words I believe the op if telling readers what a REAL

Nixonian or Rovian "dirty trick" is and that some of the "complaints" about Hillary is just politics or simply whining. Is that "to the point" enough?

[cali]

98. sure. that's a better basis for a piece than

what the OP did. Problem is, the OP didn't prove her case, and her arbitrary definition of what is or is not above or below the belt, politically, isn't some immutable truth. Plus, as I pointed out in post 62, she twists and misrepresents to make her case.

[madmom]

103. Even if she didn't make her case in all instances, she gives food for thought, a big

problem is when some see how long it is they won't read it or automatically dismiss it as rambling, thus the 30 second sound byte response. That's the way the msm has "trained" us, read only headlines, never the full story, if it doesn't fit into sound bytes it's not important, etc. IMO its an injustice to every candidate, (except the one they want to win), hell every news worthy story.

[bettyellen]

162. excess verbosity, misreprsentation of factual information, slanted pov, and masses of extraneous...

project lots. don't ya? the point of the OP..
You getting played, by Rove fool.

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bettyellen]

168. another zero content attack from lil miss loggorhea! oh lady you learned some BIG words

i'm sure daddy will pat you on the head for parroting him what 5-6 times on this thread with loggorhea...loggorhea..loggorhea! loggorhea? loggorhea.
we're all so impressed.

[InfiniteNether]

82. Maybe you wouldn't call these "Dirty Tricks", meaning, "clandestine", and "sneaky".

You don't think these are "Dirty Tricks" per se, so you just think they are no big deal. Well, Ms. Taylor, they are a big deal. Your candidate is fighting the biggest fight of her career...for herself, and to destroy a fellow Democrat. Funny how she never fought this hard for Kerry, or Gore, or against torture, or wars of aggression. I can see now that you, and the rest of her supporters, will never understand that, and will continue to lob apologetics at the rest of us.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

83. Any claim to the moral high ground was lost when...

Hillary Clinton's 'kitchen-sink' campaign pays off

Before the critical primaries in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday, her campaign had vowed to throw the "kitchen sink" at Obama to derail the momentum that had led to wins in 11 straight contests.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-assess-finalmar05,1,3681844.story

kitch·en-sink /ˈkɪtʃənˈsɪŋk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective marked by an indiscriminate and omnivorous use of elements: a kitchen-sink approach to moviemaking.

[Beacool]

86. Thanks, great post!!!!!!!

Not that it's going to sway the usual crowd, the Kool-Aid is too strong........

:eyes:

[LiberalLovinLug]

123. Oh you're talking about

That sweet nectar of TRUTH that allows us to see through the BS

Whether or not the press predicted Hillary would stoop to such depths before the campaign doesn't negate the fact that she did! Endorsing Repukes, playing the race card, bashing the Democratic base, and on and on.

And its perfectly logical to deduce that Hillary started it with her self admitted 'kitchen sink', and Obama is firing back somewhat only because he now has to to balance the media piling on to whatever traitorous concoction Hillary puts out there.

Like an old cowboy movie, she drew first like a desperate coward and forced his hand. But Obama is quicker and she'll lose anyways.

[Beacool]

147. And he'll lose the in the GE............

:shrug:

[HousePainter]

90. The NYT editorial

Gee the Clinton hating NY Times.....
you mean her home state paper who endorsed her candidacy ?

[Orsino]

95. Her campaign began long before 2006.

She's been grooming herself for the presidency since before she was a senator, I believe.

[nomorewhopper]

108. tldr

i hate hillary clinton

she has 0 chance to win and should have dropped out ages ago. i will never forgive her, regardless of how much you write.

[mcollier]

111. Not as much as the Republicans hate her

but the enemy of my enemy is my friend...

But as long as the Republicans are comfortable paying $3.60 a gallon for gas... we'll likely continue in the gridlock in Washington.

[cliffordu]

110. Sorry - I only read OP's that are MORE than 25,000 words.

[mkultra]

117. Just refer to her as a lier

It gets traction and discredits her. I do it with everyone i talk to.

[papau]

136. I love it! "lier"- One who lies down (while sleeping?) - Obama fans are funny!

[mkultra]

138. i guess a typo and 10 delegates are all you get :)

Thanks for sucking just like hillary!

[goletian]

137. the op is a failure. i read first three counter arguments -- all wrong.

If Someone Else Did It, It Is Still Hillary’s Fault

1.Drudge’s doctored 60 Minutes interview.
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200803110002

this specific quote, on its own, is not so damning. but the series of obvious attempts to bring this into question is what makes it an obvious slip on hillarys part. she pressed for obama to reject and denounce farrakhan, a muslim, she brought up obamas church and hamas, muslim, at the abc debate. her camp has not denied supplying the "middle eastern" looking photo of obama.

2. Fox News airing of Rev. Wright’s Tapes (this should probably also fall under the category of Obama political slip up’s too, since Rev. Obama warned him to distance himself from the Church before announcing the campaign, predicting that he would have precisely the problems he is now facing. Most men would listen to their pastor’s advice and not seek to blame their political opponent). For those who believe that Clinton should not discuss this issue, I would remind them that the Obama camp started Sniper-gate when Obama supporter Sinbad made comments about Clinton and that the Obama camp has been sending e-mails and memos to the press regularly to keep this story alive and that its surrogates in the press like Keith Olbermann have pushed the Sniper-gate story. If Hillary’s veracity is an issue to be discussed in regard to her fitness to be president, then Obama’s moral and political views as indicated by his choice of Church for ten years are also an issue worthy of discussion. One poster suggested that Clinton only mentions Wright to distract from Snipergate, however Sinbad spoke out on 3-13 and the Snipergate story took days to develop while Wright was already on the Fox website on 3-12, suggesting that the Obama campaign actually created Snipergate to distract from the Wright story.

obamas church has done nothing wrong. wright is a good man, and his comments were taken out of context. snipergate was clintons own doing, she made the comments that included blatant lies, not her pastor. wright made comments that were taken out of context, not obama. this is apples and oranges here.

3. Bitter-gate: Again, Obama made these remarks which I am sure that he regrets. The words are newsworthy, because they revealed a side of the Senator that people had not seen before. Many people at DU also revealed a side of themselves which they had not revealed before by agreeing with what he said. If he could unsay them, I am sure that he would. The best he can do now, is try to unsay them with spin. Clinton can not be accused of dirty tricks for getting in the way of his spin. She is not his mother nor his campaign manager.

obama perhaps regrets the made up outrage over the comments, but he meant what he said. hes verbalized this same concept several times, once even on the charlie rose show last year, i believe. the only spin is clinton suggesting that obama didnt expect this to get out, beyond the closed door meeting in gay, godless, evil san francisco, meanwhile his comments were not only taken out of context, but they were ones he had said before, ON TV.

you failed. your thread is trash. 3 strikes out of 3 attempts, youre out. the rest is most likely going to be as much of a waste of time.

[redqueen]

161. Do this enough times, and you won't even bother reading them anymore.

Kudos for bothering with three, anyway.

[Hatchling]

142. Another perceptive essay, thanks.

k&r

[GrimReefa]

144. Wow, that's a lot of writing

I'd read it all if the reace weren't already over.

Seriously, I can understand why Hillary refuses to let her Presidential bid go, I really can.

But for people who aren't Hillary Clinton to refuse to come to grips with the fact that this is no longer a competitive contest is fucking psychotic.

SHE LOST. IT'S OVER. MOVE ON.

[bluetrain]

149. kick

[Infinite Hope]

164. The most recent example...

the day after the Penn. debate, her and all her surrogates began claiming Obama was whining about the debate when he, in fact, had not so much as complained at that point.

A similar incident occurred earlier in the primary season when the Clinton campaign claimed Obama had said something and he hadn't even said a word about the issue...I however forget what that was again...it was a big deal at the time. I think it was between NH and SC and the claim was something to the effect of the Clintons claiming Obama suggested the Clintons were trying to make race an issue or called Bill's remarks racist when Obama or his campaign had not commented on the issue even a single time. The Clinton campaign has had a way of fabricating reality through this campaign.

[McCamy Taylor]

169. Jan 12 Obama camp issues "Race Memo" to press with 3 lies included to make case

that the Clintons are racists and using race as part of a dirty tricks campaign. The memo was not supposed to be attributed to the Obama campaign (like "Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)"), but once Huffington Post got it they published it and attributed it to the Obama camp.

Could that be what you heard about? It was well before the South Carolina primary.

The memo, which was obtained by the Huffington Post and has been made public elsewhere, is believed to have been given to an activist and contains mostly excerpts from different media reports. It lists the contact info and name of Obama's South Carolina press secretary, Amaya Smith, and is broken down into five incidents in which either Clinton, her husband Bill, or campaign surrogates made comments that could be interpreted as racially insensitive.

Note that the memo had been distributed elsewhere. How many journalists had already used it as a basis for the three lies that Media Matters kept trying to debunk? That Memo was a nasty piece of work, which is why I keep wondering if there is an RNC mole in the Obama camp doing dirty tricks just like CREEP did in 1972.

[Infinite Hope]

170. Nope, it wasn't that issue. There was an issue where she claimed Obama had said something specific..

...only he never had.

But you're getting closer. I wish I had documented things along the way.

[McCamy Taylor]

166. For those who don't want a "dead author" mostly I am a news media critic.

For instance, I am watching Countdown. Obama's best friend at MSNBC, Richard Wolfe was on. He just argued that Clyburn was promoting Obama as the Democratic candidate best able to unite the party, even though Clyburn has refused to say. Now, if you think about what Wolfe just said, it makes no sense. For one thing, if Clyburn endorses Obama after what he just did, then he makes Obama a dirty trickster/splitter who is trying to smear another Democrat and divide the Democratic Party. So, Clyburn is going to have to stay neutral for at least a month now that he issued these statements.

But more importantly, if you look at the polls, Hillary's voters, about half of her base of working class Dems have indicated in Penn exit polls that they will cross party lines to vote for McCain, something gallup polls have confirmed---he poaches so called "Reagan Democrats" a term I do not like, I prefer "Orphan Democrats" since they are the poor Dems the party ignores. Obama's higher income and better educated voters are less likely to vote for McCain. African-Americans may not vote for Clinton, but they will stay home rather than vote for McCain (that was what they did in 1972). So, Obama does not unite Dems, at least not on the available polling data so far.

Also, it would be naive in the extreme to imagine that a savvy politician like Clinton would do anything less than campaign her hardest for Obama, since to snub him this fall would be political suicide for her and she knows it---and Richard Wolfe is not naive, even if KO is.

So, what is Richard Wolfe doing on Countdown spreading bullshit like 1)Clyburn endorses Obama, 2) Clinton is not going to support the nominee if it is not her and 3) Obama is better able to unify the party? Anyone who has reviewed the Countdown transcripts knows that Wolfe has been delivering the Obama camp's propaganda on MSNBC for months----and it shows in the way that his normally impeccable logic unravels every time he discusses the Democratic nomination.

KO, who is not a politically savvy as a lot of people at MSNBC (like Wolfe and Buchanan and Matthews) bought the whole thing hook, line and sinker. I wonder if it is Wolfe's fault that KO has lost his own female base.

[McCamy Taylor]

171. And here is why the press HATES Bill Clinton: He rips Chris Wallace a new one on Fox

Was watching Abrams as I read DU. He had 4 youngish journalists discussing Obama's decision to go on Fox to confront them for running the Wright Tapes. Abrams closed by saying that Obama was not going to be able to duplicate what Bill Clinton did and then he showed that famous moment when Big Dog wagged his finger at "gentle" Chris Wallace (the second half of this YouTube video has the stuff Abram's showed)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNoN403tXU4

My son and I were at home cheering.

The camera cut to the four guest journalists' faces after the video clip. All four wore identical expressions of sick, gray horror. You could just see them imagining themselves in Chris Wallace's position. Dan Abrams, the fast talking attorney probably did not even realize what the sight of Bill Clinton chewing up and spitting out a fellow journalist would do to a panel of journalists.

None of them said a word.

Watching their faces, I finally understood why the press hates Bill Clinton. Most of them do what they are paid to do. If their boss tells them "Go ask Clinton whether or not he raped that woman and get him mad and see what happens" that is what they are supposed to do.

It must suck being a media whore.