… for making the first real run of a woman for the White House. She has made history, already, and no doubt she’ll go on to make more.
(I really love this photo of her, and wish more of the photos of her showed this contemplative, earnest side of her.)
It’s a decent photo.
I still don’t trust her.
She’s not out of the limelight “yet”. She might be supporting Obama. But what is the cost?
The Clinton’s are heavy hitters and “don’t take prisoners”. Politics is a rough game. (And if one thinks Obama is some idealist, please remember he is a Chicago politician first and foremost. Nobody plays politics tougher than a Chicago pol. That’s why he won.)
So what is her price? She still controls her delegates. Floor fight?
But whatever the deal is, it is really wrapped up tight. No source I know has a clue what the deal is. But there are rumors there is a deal.
Yeah, it seems like a lot of the photos the media chose to publish made her look like some kind of harpy or they were just plain unflattering. But what else can we expect from the so-called “liberal media” (owned by those flaming liberals Jack Welch, Rupert Murdoch, etc.)
Just to get some facts straight, Jack Welch retired a few years ago. Jeffrey Immelt is now CEO of GE and both of them did not “own” GE. They were only CEOs accountable to the Board of Directors and the stockholders.
It is well known that GE has never interfered with editorial policy at NBC. Presently, it is the President of NBC, Mr. Jeffery Zucker, that creates and executes editorial policy at NBC. He is well known as a strong left leaning activist and a good friend of George Soros.
The bias against Hillary at NBC can be traced to his political lens. Just ask solid Democrats like Geraldine Ferraro, Lanny Davis and Hillary herself if they now have a different opinion of how fair NBC News is. NBC savaged Senator Clinton. (In my opinion, that is “not” what a news organization should do.) Under Zucker, NBC was just the most flagrant mainstream media outlet that biased the nomination process.
The news bias against Hillary was pervasive. Nmonster insightfully mentions the pictures. But there was far more bias than that. Time, selected quotes out of context, ignoring Obama gaffs where everything Hillary said was amplified, is just the tip of the iceberg.
Regardless of what one thinks of Hillary or her policies, it is NOT the press that should be coloring information the electorate needs to make an honest appraisal of who to vote for. News coverage should not be advocacy coverage.
Remember we are talking about Democrats here that savaged a valid Democratic potential Presidential nominee. Obama most likely would have won the nomination without such distortion.
As to Rupert Murdoch and Fox News, solid Democrats like Ed Rendell, Lannie Davis and others have publicly declared that FOX News was the most “fair and balanced” when reporting the Democratic Presidential nominee campaign. I also think they gave Geraldine Ferraro a fair channel to express her views. Ferraro has also publicly stated her opinion of FOX is favorable. They “did” try maintain the “we report, you decide” principle of traditional news policy.
Please note, Hillary’s interview with O’Reilly was very impressive. It was also very professionally done where O’Reilly asked tough questions without digging up dirt. Hillary’s responses were Presidential. Just contrast that to some of the NBC interviews that hit her with dirt.
Many of these solid liberal Democrats have now admitted they understand how Republicans feel about left wing media bias. It is pervasive and unhealthy for the country…. and something has to be done about it. We need objective debate. The electorate is suppose to decide, not a group of elitist journalists.
It is “hip and cool” but also very disingenuous to blame Republicans for some of the mess biased leftists make of their own circumstances. Lets not blame people that had nothing to do with the distortion that significantly hampered Hillary’s try at the WH. All that does is stop us from looking in the mirror and finding the truth.
You’re right – the media is hopelessly left wing biased. How else to explain the free ride that McCain has gotten and continues to get, and George W. Bush’s free ride including the unquestioning reporting of propaganda that got us into a major war that we’re losing. How else to explain the never ending Rev. Wright flap along with the flag pin flap. The media must be a bunch of flaming liberals. How silly of me – thank you for setting me straight.
As for Welch, I’m sure he was just lost in the NBC building and somehow stumbled into the control room and must have been misunderstood when he pressured the network to call Florida for Bush back in 2000.
And Fox – could there be a more unbiased network? Employing as they do what, 15 conservative commentators and one liberal one? What could be more fair and balanced than that? Identifying child molesting and closet gay Republican congressmen as Democrats? I’m sure that was just an oversight from such a fine news organization. And hell, no one’s perfect! So what if they did it twice, right? And their wetting their pants about the virtually non-existent problem of voter fraud? I’m sure that’s entirely non-partisan. Thanks again for setting me straight.
Hi nmonster:
Thanks for the lucid debate.
Lets take this one step at a time.
A. McCain is a moderate Republican. The media likes moderate Republicans because they are not conservatives. All one has to do is observe how Chris Matthews, certainly no conservative, treats McCain.
Conversely, most conservatives in his party find him him a despicable traitor. It is well known McCain hates the conservative wing in his own party. So needless to say, the left wing bias is diminished in his favor when contrasted to other Republicans.
The media pulls to the left. If given the choice of McCain or a conservative, the favorable press will go to McCain. If a more leftist candidate is compared to McCain, then they will trash McCain.
Now that we are in the general election cycle, lets watch. It will be interesting. I am anticipating great inspirational pictures of Barack while McCain will be portrayed as sucking down Geritol. Soros has already devoted about $60MM just to attack him.
B. The Iraq war: Yes, in hindsight the press was more silent than usual. This is a complicated issue because it pertains to Israel just as much as national security. Please note, even the New York Times had stories that supported the criterion for going to war. We also need to recall that George Tenet, the CIA Director at the time, was a President Clinton appointee.
The United States can not go to war without bi-partisan support. Hillary and other Democratic Senators supported the war resolution. Hence, many liberals in the media saw a threat as well. I am not so sure we are still losing. Certainly we are not yet “winning”. The NYT considers progress has been made. The surge is working. The USA, EU and Japan have massive vital interests there. There is also Israel to consider. This is a messy issue. However debate on the war does not fit into the issue of media bias or this wonderfully intelligent debate. It would take too long.
C. Wight and the Flag: All of the press is going to gravitate to sensationalism. What do they do with it though? They are smart enough to know what is going to hurt… and what won’t.
Wright and the flag did not really hurt Senator Obama as much as one might think because it was not his words or opinions. (There is no strategist I know that would claim Obama lost or gained any votes because he doesn’t wear a lapel pin.) However, his comments on guns and God, that hurt bad because he said it. Please note, with the exception of Hillary supporters in the press, George Stephanopoulos etc. the mainstream press did cover it but did not amplify it because they knew it would hurt big time. It is the lens of how to handle it that manifests the bias.
D. Welch: Jack Welch’s office was never in the NBC building. His office was located at the GE executive center in in Schenectady, New York. If we know anything about Welch’s management style, it was super “hands off” on all the divisions. He picked his people, then had them run their businesses.
As to calling for Bush in 2000, did it have any bearing on the outcome? The media calling an election, right or left does not determine the outcome. It is actual votes. It is inconsequential nor does that indicate right wing bias even if he did it which is doubtful knowing Welch. (Under Welch, if NBC lost money? Watch out, heads would have rolled.) BTW: Where did you get that bit of information? Half his executives are Democrats. (Welch is a Republican though.)
Please note contrary commentary might state that the mainstream media was declaring a Gore victory in Florida even before the polls closed. So the Republicans can complain that they lost at least 10,000 votes in the panhandle which is overwhelmingly Republican, because the mainstream media doesn’t know Florida resides in two time zones. “Hows that for being really East Coast biased!” A real conspiracy theory can be made out of that one by the conspiracy nuts.
The fact is Bush “did” win Florida. The NYT and other newspapers conducted their own count after that mess and determined that Bush won. John Daley, brother of Mayor Daley, also admits Bush won and he ran Gore’s legal fight. Here in Chicago, when President Bush first came to Chicago after the election, Mayor Daley made a deal with him for fed money to improve public transit. That was after his brother savaged him. But that is politics Chicago style.
As to the general 2000 election, lets face reality, Gore couldn’t even win his own State. The Democrats lost Arkansas, President Clinton’s State too. Any one of those States could have turned the tide for Gore. Excessive focus on Florida prevents the big strategic picture of what happened from being evaluated. As I keep saying, the object is to win elections. Elections can not be won based on hatred. Lets get over this.
(Do you want to go back to the days where there is no Democratic Senator from Virginia like James Webb, a conservative Democrat?… or a Democratic majority Congress?)
E. FOX: Hannity certainly is a vocal advocate conservative. Yes, Hannity does get away with a lot because Colmes is one of the weakest debaters on TV.
O”Reilly leans right but isn’t really considered a conservative by conservatives. From mainstream conservatism, he is middle of the road. He is pretty tough on most of his guests. His Roman Catholicism shows though. That puts him in the social conservative category. However, he is very anti gun – NRA and hates the oil companies.
FOX has many left and liberal guests and commentators. Juan Williams, Mara Liasson (both NPR), Jeff Birnbaum (Washington Post), Mort Kondracke (Roll Call), Howard Wolfson (Hillary Campaign manager), David Axelrod (Obama’s campaign strategist), Lannie Davis etc. The list is too long to continue.
The issue here is that there are “no” conservatives in mainstream media. However, that is not the real world. The real world is not exclusively the avante garde, New York City and academia. The mosaic is far more complex. There are people who read Katrina vanden Heuvel. There are also people who like Anne Coulter.
If one is a political junkie or political strategist, one also needs to listen to Limbaugh for a few hours a week just to see what he is saying. One might not know like his opinions. But it is imperative to know what his commentary is. After all, he has close to 20 million listeners and about 35% are Democrats.
Again, the issue is to get elected. As Paul Begala says, a coalition of the intellectual avante garde and African Americans will “NOT” win the election.
This is why leftist media bias is bad for the Democratic Party too. Barack has so far, with exceptions that nmonster nicely lists, has been treated like a rock star. But rock stars do not become President.
Lets ask a question, “What happens if Obama is NOT elected in November?” There are a multitude of Democratic strategists that are very concerned about the prospects.
Please note, McCain is a total dud, even in his own Party. Yet without much press and little advertising he beats Obama in some polls while in others he is within the margin of error.
Obama’s electoral edge comes from winning many Republican States where he has a snow balls chance in hell (Helen, can I say that? If not, sorry) of winning in November. Nebraska anybody? How about Montana? Hillary creamed him in the big States like Ohio and Pennsylvania where the election will be decided.
The USA is a moderate center right leaning country on the whole. In hindsight, if the left wing bias affected the nomination process to prejudice the electorate against a candidate that can win those States, then it hurts the Democratic Party as much as the country.
BTW: McCain’s strategy is to create a permanent “center-center”coalition that disregards both the conservatives and the left. He wants to make the Republicans the dominant party by taking the center. Where do you think that will leave LGBT people? And he might do it if the Democratic Party constantly runs so far left that they alienate everything east of New York and outside the enclaves of the avante garde intellectuals.
This is NOT a degradations of New York or the avante garde. My point can be summarized by a famous Chicago political quote. Many years ago Mayor Daley senior was asked by a Chicago reporter why a Ward Alderman did not get elected expecting to get an analysis about the issues of the day. Instead Mayor Daley replied, “He didn’t get enough votes.” Then walked away.
It is as simple as that nmonster dear… By the way, although a little caustic, thanks for the wonderful debate. This has been fun.
Here’s an interesting article slightly different from some other issues commented herein.
http://www.comcast.net/articles/tv/20080608/AP.on.TV.Clinton_s.Exit/
Tom Brokaw is the primary commentator, certainly no conservative.
🙂
I just have two questions Catrina dear. Are you out as transgender to your conservative friends? If so, have they welcomed you with open arms?
And I’m not going to attempt to rebut anything you’ve written, because it’s obvious your mind is already made up. How you can support a political party and a movement that would just as soon see you hung from a tree I can’t fathom.
Actually, on second thought there two things I wish to dispute, first of all, Bush did NOT in fact win Florida in 2000: http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm
And according to eyewitnesses Welch DID in fact intrervene at NBC’s decision desk on election night:
http://www.house.gov/waxman/issues/issues_other_nbc_elec_waxman_renews_9_11_01.htm
Hi nmonster dear:
Again, thanks for the lucid, professional and kindly comments. I appreciate you so much…
Just to respond briefly (well maybe not “briefly”…) 🙂
A. My political affiliation: I am not a Republican. I consider myself a moderate liberal – center Democrat – Independent with a strong repeat strong pursuit to human rights that is driven by a very transcendent esoteric perspective.
Perhaps because I am older than most here I have a more traditional intellectual paradigm from schooling that manifests a particular world view including politics. The education I received no longer exists. To me that is a shame.
My points have been about “how to win elections”, not advocacy politics. I admit I perhaps don’t have a bias against the right because there are good ideas there too. This admittedly, separates me from some of my friends who just detest the right. (You ought to hear my sister’s vitriolic hatred against the right!!! She would put them in concentration camps and shoot them all!)
But in the big picture, hate is not healthy. Political concepts will fail if they are directed “against” something. There is an imperative need for substance. They need to amplify the expression of the human spirit. There are valid reasons why people think the way they do. Successful politics “has” to account for that.
The key I am trying to convey is that political thought exhibits an extremely wide spectrum in the USA and that is good. However, when people only insulate themselves within the intellectual cocoon of mutually supporting ideologies, one can miss critical political issues that can cause catastrophic events that can significantly harm our reality. This happens on the left as well as the right.
Hence, the need to ponder a Limbaugh, or maybe better Laura Ingraham, as well as Rusty Rhodes (or whoever took her place) when evaluating the zeitgeist of the culture, especially if one strongly leans to the left. The Middle Path, at least in awareness, is the path to political wisdom and success.
From another perspective, as a life long Chicagoan, (and Helen knows I have some wired contacts) the assumptions of politics are very different from other Democratic enclaves. Illinois is a real blue state. The city of Chicago and suburbs have been Democratic bastions for decades. There is not one major State Officer that is a Republican. Democrats run everything. However, the Democratic Party in Illinois is massively pragmatic. (Our State income tax is only 3.5 %. What is it in New York?) So like Mayor Daley’s quote, its always about “gettin’ enough votes” not ideology. In Chicago, politics is about picking up the garbage on time, filling in potholes and making sure the snow gets plowed. And, of course about $$$$$$$!!. Its the Chicago way. It is much different from other areas.
The Democrats here really do care about what “Bungalo Bill and “da family” are thinking. (And Bungalo Bill is NOT trans!) That kind of real basic politics is what I am trying to refer to in my comments.
It is also what Begala is referring to. In a presidential campaign, a basis for getting elected can NOT be premised on urban sophistication. There is a lot of talk about minorities. However, the ugly secret to most elections is this, “married white males and married white females determine elections”.
Does this neutralize feminism? Heck no! Does this neutralize the validity of altruistic self expression or alternate life styles? Heck no!
It only reflects a simple Chicago pol axiom, “ya gotta get elected”.
In my opinion it is also so critical to be fair and objective with opponents, even if they “want to string you up”. Their rights are our rights. Hence, if we scream “silence them”, we actually are silencing ourselves.
B. 2000: That is why the recount in 2000 that sought to include illegal ballots, even if that showed Gore winning was (and is) the wrong thing to do. “The shoe could have been on the other foot.” If those legal safeguards are torn down in the pursuit of an advocacy position, no matter how seemingly right it is, then what is to protect those very altruistic principles when the “devil” emerges against them? Nothing.
So by a count of all the ballots “legal” in the State, Bush won….
Here is the NYT article from their site:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEEDB1338F931A25752C1A9679C8B63
If that one doesn’t work, please try this one….
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/recount/12VOTE.html
That is why it is suggested to drop all the vitriolic hatred against President Bush and leave Florida 2000 to the historians. It doesn’t further human consciousness.
Just as a quick pondering, if Senator Obama runs on the slogan McCain is a Bush 3rd term, or that we must surrender in Iraq, the Democrats will lose. Bush is not on the ticket and “Bungalo Bill” doesn’t like America losing a war no matter if the original rationale was flawed.
See? The message has to be directed, not at say, our beloved Helen and Betty, sophisticated eastern seaboard urban intellectuals, that are also part of the creative community not to say the alternative lifestyle community too, the message has to frame “Bungalo Bill’s” viewpoint.
As to the Welch thing, until now I had never heard the story. Thanks. Yet, I still don’t see how this one way or the other is indicative of “right wing bias” or even if it was critical to the mess in Florida. Overwhelming data shows that the media is distinctly biased to the left.
As to myself and being TS, some people I know do “know”. Others don’t. However, everyone “suspects”. I never married because of it. So, much bias and negative innuendo comments, etc. has been thrown this way by friends and just about everyone else. That’s why I live pretty much alone. But that’s OK. There are benefits to that too. I just refuse to allow hatred against my friends and colleagues to be a part of my psyche when they are guessing correctly and disapprove.
Essentially, I refuse to immerse my consciousness in thoughts that 10,000 years from now will be meaningless and create pain in my cosncsiousness now. 🙂
Well I must say you’re the most conservative “moderate liberal – center Democrat – Independent” I’ve ever come across.
nmonster dear…
??? Might I ask what is so conservative about the positions I have outlined here? The basis for every comment is “liberal”. I readily admit, I am not a “leftist” or a “socialist”. I am especially not a communist.
I also think identity politics is extremely dangerous because it negates the complex multiplicity of human consciousness.
Perhaps your perception is due to the fact that my basic political opinions are fundamentally based on Enlightenment Philosophy, not socialist advocacy that replaced it. I am also a massive fan of Spiral Dynamics, Ken Wilbur and Esoteric Traditions that advise that there is a causality of human consciousness that transcends “any” external appearances in what we commonly know as “reality”.
If this is conservative, I would love to hear what you think is liberal… 🙂
Nmonster dear…
Anyway this is Helen’s boards.. If you would like to continue our conversation please message me on the boards. Then others won’t get bored by this conversation.
oh, do go ahead & keep chatting here if you’d like. that’s what the comments section is for.
Helen dear,
By all means, with your gracious permission I will continue to post if nmonster dear and others continue to read and find it interesting…. 🙂
********
In this context, there is some measure of perplexity concerning how past comments are considered “conservative”. If they are anything, the causality for them is “liberal” in a very transcendent sense. It is not possible to hate into political ascendancy. If anything the commentary reflects political pragmatism.
Perhaps the perception of conservatism manifests from an attempt to describe conditions in certain areas of the middle of the country. They are significantly different than cultures manifesting in certain coastal areas.
By all means, this commentary does not invalidate progressive cultures emergent say in New York intellectual fields or say the Seattle – San Francisco New Age beltway (of which I have strong affinity.) They do reflect however the need to be “cognizant” and “responsive” to this “middle of the country” culture that, in its most altruistic sense, has validity too…. especially when considering the need to “win a national election”.
Again, lets go back to that Chicago pol axiom. That Ward Alderman, (visualize a fat guy with a local law degree wearing a diamond pinkie in the commercial insurance business) declaring, “Ya gotta get elected! Dats how it works in the wunnerful city of Chicagah.”
He then has his staff pass out trash cans with his name on it to “all da folks”. That is how Aldermen in Chicago permanently advertise. They literally put their names on trash cans and pass them out to supporters. They are like permanent lawn signs in your alley. Those who have them know their garbage is going to get picked up. True story 🙂
It is that pragmatic.
Chicago perhaps is unique even in the middle of the country because it is so overwhelmingly Democratic yet so very pragmatic. However, the success of the inclusive Chicago political model has been phenomenally affective in forming long lasting political coalitions.
Nmonster dear (or others) how can this be “conservative”?
oh dear
How are you conservative?? Do I really need to point this out? How about your assertions that:
> The surge is working
> The media are “leftist”
> Fox “News” is “Fair and Balanced”
> There are no conservatives in mainstream media
> Bush won Florida in 2000
That’s just what I could find by going back through your posts, and from memory…