The Press v. Hillary Part 4: Friendly Fire

[McCamy Taylor]

Hello again. I am back, as promised with part four of The Press v. Hillary Clinton . This is the installment that is going to make a lot of people hopping mad. Unlike the good folks at Media Matters, I do not cut any slack for fellow Democrats or for journalists (that includes internet journalists) working on the left. Nor are other Democratic candidates given special dispensation to make up phony stories. If you have altered, played fast and loose or made up facts in an attempt to slime, smear or do harm to Hillary Clinton or if you have resorted to cheap propaganda tricks to label her a bitch, witch, lesbian, liar, warmonger, robot and I have caught you doing it, it will be in this journal. Because Hillary is a Democrat and when you slime her, you slime the Democratic Party---as well as committing the crime of propaganda.

"As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: You liberate a city by destroying it. Words are used to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests."
—Gore Vidal, Imperial America, 2004

Fortunately, so many people on the left have been participating in the dogpile that the chances of any one person being selected for individual criticism is quite slim.

Everyone knows that the left has disliked Hillary for a long time. Even recent converts to the left like Arianna Huffington despise Hillary Clinton:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/cracking-the-hillary-code_b_20966.html
From Cracking the Hillary Code May, 2006:

“Hillary Clinton is determined to single-handedly remove every last vestige of authenticity from American politics.” In laymen’s terms, Hillary is a phony. (Note to Huffington, American politics has been many things but never “authentic”. Not even the vote count.)

“Hillary, phonier than Alberto Gonzales' Senate testimony on domestic spying, sucking up the media oxygen” Gotta give that woman points for style. Even John Solomon did not get this enthused when he was assigned the task of painting Edwards as a phony. I guess for Solomon it was just a job. For Huffington, it is a passion. There is more--- “ her dreary, shape-shifting slog”…. “a faith stealer” Poor Arianna. If only political correctness did not keep her from saying the B word. I am serious. A nice reactionary “Lying bitch” would be preferable to Huffington’s painfully purple prose.

“The sacred scrolls of her inauthenticity are legend and legion”.

What really worries me is that Huffington then goes on to list a bunch of ways that Hillary has attempted to find “common-ground” (her words) with Republicans in the Senate as if this is something evil in itself. Earth to Arianna. Your man, Obama brags about how he wants to reach out across the aisle. I mention this because there is often no reason behind the left’s attacks on Hillary. They attack her, because she is Hillary and they despise her.

Here is another case of double standard---from another liberal, Margaret Carlson. Here is what she wrote:

“The more a frontrunner's status is premised on electability, the more a candidate forgoes appealing to old- fashioned voters who still care about where you stand and who you are, in favor of nailing down those who just want to get over the messy primaries. Forget about falling in love and just fall in line, the better to unite against the real enemy on the other side.
“Electability is less stable than being ahead based on leadership, likeability and standing on the issues.”

This is absolutely fascinating. Had she written this yesterday, it would be about Obama. The message would be that we should not call a premature end to the primary, with calls for Hillary to drop out before the question about what to do about the voters in Michigan and Florida are dealt with. And of course several states and territories have not voted, including the all important Pennsylvania primary. Carlson could be making a very good case that we must allow the democratic process to go forward so that all the people's votes can be counted. And we should stop the name calling---which mostly consists of “Monster” and “that Hillary is such a divisive dirty b-word” and “the Clintons interjected race” and the fixation of Obama’s religion---and get back to the issues. And we definitely should not pick our nominee based upon who compares more favorably to John McCain in a poll (electability). Let’s talk about issues. Like health care. And the economy.

Of course, Carlson did not write this yesterday. She wrote this last year, when Clinton was the presumptive front runner, and therefore people like Carlson were verbally punishing her for being arrogant. As if it was somehow Hillary’s fault that everyone in American knew who she was and half of them thought highly of her. Be sure to check out the article. You can tell the degree of hatred writers have for Hillary by how unflattering the picture of her is, and Carlson chose one of the ugliest pictures I have ever seen.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/data?pid=avimage&iid=iEMRqreoPoFo

In “Where are you now, dream candidate?” from May, 2007 Lawrence O’Donnell gets right to the point:

“Hillary Clinton doesn't want voters to think of her as an Ivy Leaguer from a tony Chicago neighborhood who now lives the high life in New York and Georgetown, so she has been known to employ a fake Southern accent below the Mason-Dixon line.”

Did she fake living seventeen years in Arkansas, Larry? Maybe she got tired of having to repeat herself.

Here is Hillary the Hawk
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070305/truthdig

She is an unrepentant hawk, à la Joe Lieberman.

Now that is just plain silly.

Here we get Ted Koppel on NPR saying that Hillary “misled” when she said that she would begin pulling troops out within her first 100 days because she told someone that some troops would have to remain to protect vital U. S. interests. Koppel extrapolates that to mean a decade of military involvement under Clinton. I guess Koppel never heard of a U.S. embassy….
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10947954


As with the corporate media, the easiest way for the so called liberal press to attack Clinton is to “repeat” what they are told by other sources. After all, the news is nothing but gossip, right?

http://www.slate.com/id/2121218/

In an article titled The Truth About Hillary? A Readers Guide to the Salicious New Book? in 2005 Blake Wilson publishes all the naughty bits from yet another hit piece. And some of them are very naughty indeed. We get Hillary the liar, Hillary the lesbian, Hillary the ruthless and even Hillary the smelly proving that the left can teach people like Rush a thing or two about character assassination by proxy.

I. How the Village Voice Started the Latest Hillary Lesbian Scandal

You read that right. The Village Voice which has been pretty much open in its disdain for Hillary and its support for several of her opponents, especially Barack Obama, did her a world of hurt last fall when Michael Mustow started this rumor:

http://www.villagevoice.com/nyclife/0732,musto,77465,15.html

As I recently said on MONICA CROWLEY's radio show, whisper campaigns are claiming that HILLARY CLINTON is GAYLE KING–ing her aide de camp, the glamorous HUMA ABEDIN, an Indian/Pakistani goddess from Kalamazoo, Michigan. In other words, Hillary may be putting Huma out there in the press and purposely making her more visible as a pre-emptive strike that amounts to her hiding in plain sight. This way, no Republican can later say, "Who is this gorgeous babe who spends so much intimate time with Hillary that the Observer called her Hill's 'body person'? Was GENNIFER FLOWERS's book right about Hillary's sexual taste?" And does either of this couple have the balls to bottom?

Remember what I said about ugly Hillary pictures? This is how she looks in the Voice



Mustow’s gossip made the rounds until it finally saw print in Harper’s and was being discussed by Hillary’s Democratic rivals:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/11/hbc-90001616

But it’s not just Republicans who are pushing the story. Will Folks, a well-known blogger in South Carolina, reported yesterday that he’d “heard from sources at rival Democratic presidential campaigns who claim that they ‘know it to be true’ that Hill and Huma are romantically-involved.” I called Folks, and he said that two different Democratic campaigns had told him about the alleged affair, but neither had “presented anything remotely resembling proof.”

Imagine what kind of harm a story like that might have done to Hillary if there was really a whisper campaign about it in South Carolina by two other Democratic camps? And Hillary would not dare complain or risk drawing more media attention. I label this Democrat Dirty Trick Number One Directed at Hillary: Operation Hillary is a Lesbian in South Carolina . And no one in the MSM ever reported it.

Even without a complaint, the media found the story anyway, in the worst way possible for a Democrat. The Daily Show has it up on their Indecision 2008 website where every left winger with a sense of humor is bound to stumble across it.
http://www.indecision2008.com/blog.jhtml?c=v&m=91841

It gets worse. If you read the second diary in this series, you know that Hillary gave an interview to 60 Minutes and was asked if she believed that Obama was a Muslim. The first words out of her mouth were “No, of course not!” The Drudge Report Took her longer comments, which included a long monologue about how she herself had been subject to unfounded smears and how she felt for Obama and altered them so as to give the impression that she hedged on her answer, then it distributed this. The MSM picked it up and the Obama camp quickly expressed outrage that she had not said “No” when if fact she had said “No” and had even called it a smear.

Here is an example of the deliberate distortion of her words from our own DU in a thread ironically titled Here is what Hillary actually said Note that the video cuts off abruptly. That is because the poster did not want people at DU to hear the part in which she calls the talk of Obama being a Muslim a smear:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x99904

Here is Media Matters with Hillary’s full reply to the question. Note how different her response is when you hear her full response, not the censored version

http://mediamatters.org/items/200803050010

Well, in the bitterest irony of all, a poster at Daily Kos who claims to be an Obama supporter has just resurrected the issue of Hillary’s Lesbian affair—the one that the Village Voice started. The thread author has recommended spreading the rumor as “payback” for her answer to the 60 Minutes question. This is the most outrageous thing I have ever heard. But apparently a bunch of people at Kos think it is a good idea, because it has been rated up.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/2/201720/2271/270/467568

The sources for the rumor about Hillary's sexual orientation are the same as those for Barack Obama's religion: anonymous e-mails, idle gossip and the like. Still, if these sources are strong enough to justify the publication of stories about rumors about Obama being a Muslim, then I guess they're good enough to justify the publication of stories about rumors about Hillary being a lesbian.

This kind of tit for tat scorched earth politics plays right into the hands of the RNC. Which brings me to an important point I want to make before I proceed to the next part of this journal. Karl Rove has been following a very simple strategy this election season. I spotted it last fall. He is using the play book that Pat Buchanan created for Dick Nixon in 1972. That year, Nixon went overboard. As an incumbent, he probably would have won if he had waged a normal campaign. However, he wanted an absolute crushing victory, so he resorted to all kinds of dirty tricks.
Karl Rove will be happy with a squeaker, but since the GOP’s chances look abysmal, it is going to take all of Buchanan’s dirty tricks and then some to pull a win out of bag. In a nut shell, Rove's strategy includes
1. Brokered Democratic Convention. This was effective in 1972. It created a facsimile of Chicago 1968 in which the Democrats leave the convention in disarray, with party leaders split and the nominee weakened by lack of support. To achieve this, the MSM has been carefully changing its support between Democratic candidates. All last year, while Hillary was ahead, they were attacking her, as I show in my previous journals, while giving tons of positive free publicity to Obama (the only exception being rumors of Muslim ties for Obama which Drudge and others always attributed to Hillary. These could not hurt Obama in the Democratic primary but could lay the ground work for a general election attack and could hurt Hillary by labeling her a Bitch ). However, the exact moment that Obama pulled ahead of Hillary in delegate count, things changed and the press began to provide encouragement to Hillary to keep her in the race. This change was most striking at MSNBC as I show in my journals. The overt media bias also serves to anger supporters of the two candidates who attribute it to the machinations of the opposition, not realizing that Democrats have little to no control over telecommunications giants, who mostly pander to the Bush administration for favors from the FCC. This creates an intra party war which weakens the Democrats---and leads supporters of the losing candidate to stay home in the fall.
2. Buchanan dirty trick number one Make smears directed at one Democrat and attribute them to another Democrat . This is how intra party fighting starts. It worked in 1972 and it is working in this election season. Indeed, with anonymous emails and postings and websites, it has never been easier for the RNC to set up a site called “Obama is a Muslim” or to order a Push Poll that appears to come from Hillary the Bitch or do whatever the hell else it wants to do to further to two all important Big Lies, Hillary is a Bitch (which is supposed to knock her out during the primary) and Obama is a Scary Black Muslim (which they hope will take him out in the general). Link to article with Buchanan’s dirty tricks memo below:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/stories/buchananmemo.htm

The Rove 1972 strategy has been working well for him, as witnessed by the war of words being waged here on the boards of DU. Yes, I know that no one thinks that they would ever fall for a Karl Rove dirty trick. Well, take comfort from the fact that you are in good company. Most of the writers whose work I am posting below are not being paid by the RNC. They are doing it for free, bless their deluded little hearts.

II Let He Who is Without Sin Cast the First Stone or Democratic Primary as Monster Truck Rally

Ask Obama supporters who cast the first stone, and they will shout in unison “HILLARY DID!” Ask Hillary supporters who drew first blood, and they will tell you “It's that dirty Obama!”

It was neither. As I document in the earlier volumes of this series, the very earliest attacks were all leveled by right wing sites like Drudge and Fox which would claim “Obama is a Muslim….and Hillary told us.” The transparency of both lies is so great that you could read the old New York Times through it. Last January, when they first started this game, the Democrats were wise to them. Now, when they play it, the Democrats respond like well trained dogs.

It is pathetic to watch.

Hillary is a bitch had an immediate effect of cooling Democratic voters to Hillary. Obama is a Scary Black Muslim had little to no effect on Democrats---except to make Obama look like the victim of a scurrilous bigoted attack. That was why it was inconceivable that a Democrat would use such a strategy in the primary. Obama is a Muslim is a general election Big Lie that benefits only John McCain after Denver. In the primary, such a strategy would serve to strengthen Obama, by making him out to be the victim of a conspiracy---and Democrats sure do love their victims. Almost as much as they hate their bullies.

As the election neared, that same pattern began to repeat itself over and over again.

http://fromtheleft.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/hillary-clinton-robocall-trashes-barack-hussein-obama/

If you ever doubted the depth of dirty politics that characterize Hillary Clinton’s campaign, please listen to this.
The Obama campaign has released a recording (mp3) it says came from a Nevadan’s answering machine of an anonymous robocall that criticizes Obama for taking money from special interests while repeating, four times, his rarely used middle name: “Hussein.”
“I’m calling with some important information about Barack Hussein Obama,” the call begins, before saying that “Barack Hussein Obama says he doesn’t take money from Washington lobbyists or special interest groups but the record is clear that he does.”
After mentioning his full name once more, the call concludes:
“You just can’t take a chance on Barack Hussein Obama.”
Hillary Clinton: she’s filthy enough to make Karl Rove smile.

How do we know that call came from Hillary and not from the RNC or from Obama? Because the press –mainstream and leftwing all knows that Hillary is a Bitch. Never mind that a political blogger says that two Dem campaigns in South Carolina were trying to peddle the Hillary is a Lesbian story. The only person in the entire country who uses dirty tricks is Hillary.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/breaking-news-p.html
La Time reports on a “push poller” presumed to be from Hillary because it called Independents in Calfornia and asked negative questions about Edwards, Obama and McCain but positive ones of Hillary. Again, how do they know it was Hillary and not someone trying to push the Hillary is a Bitch lie that is hurting her so badly? Only Hillary engages in dirty tricks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5MO43g7_Pk
Please watch this video of ABC News reporting Obama blasting Hillary because Bob Novak got on Fox and said that Hillary has dirt on Obama that she is not going to use yet. Now tell me why is Obama blasting Hillary? Why is he taking the word of a known cheat and Bush associate like Bob Novak over that of a fellow Democrat?

I can tell you why. Because Democrats love a victim and they hate a bully, and Obama is a savvy politician who was not about to pass up that opportunity to score points on national television by portraying himself as what his party loves best. That is calculation at its finest.
The same old pattern. The right wing says We have dirt on Obama---and Hillary gave it to us Only Novak was too drunk to think of any dirt. And Obama still played the same game feigning outrage.

Bravo! Encore!

It gets better (or worse depending upon your point of view)

From Politico by Ben Smith from February 2008

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Dressed.html

Drudge is leading with a picture of Obama in Somali garb, and it's in a bank-shot form that's become very familiar this cycle: Clinton is blamed for leaking it.
So far, these attacks have hurt Clinton more than they have Obama, and his campaign is intent on turning this to his advantage as well:
“On the very day that Senator Clinton is giving a speech about restoring respect for America in the world, her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election."

Consider this. If people will take Drudge's word that the info came from Hillary what happens in the general election when Drudges "source" suddenly comes forward and tells someone from the Washington Post "I am so sorry now. I never was with the Hillary campaign. I have been an Obama supporter all along. I planted those stories with Drudge to help him and hurt her. But my conscience wouldn't let me rest."

Once you start accepting one Drudge lie as credible when do you stop?

The Michigan Dirty Trick Against Hillary or No One is Innocent Here is another dirty trick that you will not see the press report upon---not until the general election. Since McCain the Incorruptible is now the nominee, you can bet that he will use the tactic Obama is a corrupt Chicago Daley style politician and Obama’s campaign is providing them with evidence----Americans just have not heard it yet, because if it isn’t part of the Hillary is a Bitch Big Lie then the press does not report it. Here is something I found very interesting, some back story about why only Hillary’s name was on the Michigan ballot, Turns out that the Obama camp realized that she would win and Obama would do poorly, so they contacted the other candidates in secret:

http://iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1264

Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa.

I wonder how Michigan voters would feel if they knew they were never even given a chance to vote on all the Democrats because Obama was trying so desperately to capture Iowa that he was willing to pander to their prejudice against Michigan's early primary---and conspire to leave Hillary alone on the ballot. Luckily, they never will, because the press won’t tell them---until after the nominating convention. Then it will be a scoop for some lucky NYT reporter.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/16/obama-spot-criticizes-clinton-for-same-old-politics/

I throw this one in here to show that Obama is not above character attacks. Hillary wanted to debate before Wisconsin. She was cash strapped and a debate would have helped her out. He could have just said no. Instead, he attacked her campaign style. Remember how Rudi was running for president of 9/11? Sometimes I think Obama is offering us The Perfect Campaign —the one we will remember forever. And Hillary keeps getting in his way. Jimmy Carter had a perfect campaign back in 1976, too. Hunter S. Thompson, that old no bullshitter just loved him. The only problem with a perfect campaign is it is like the perfect wedding---it ends in a real life marriage.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/21/democratic-south-carolina-debate-obama-clinton-take-the-gloves-off/

This article has an enlightening clip from the South Carolina debate. Please note that Obama is the one who brings up the fact that Hillary sat on the board of Wal-Mart first. She responds by bringing up Rezko in reply. This form of tit for tat is not good for the Democrats, but Obama likes to pretend that he is above character assassination politics and this is just not true. He relies upon the MSM to conveniently ignore or forget to report on anything that he and his followers say or do, because Obama is a bitch is not an official Big Lie.

Obama:”…Because when I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shipped overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart. I was fighting these fights.”
Clinton:”I was fighting those ideas while you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum-landlord business in inner city Chicago.”

Why doesn’t Hillary just get on TV and confront Obama directly? She tried:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/23/hillary-clinton-throws-down-the-gauntlet/

Anyone who thought that Hillary Clinton’s wistful closing statement at the Austin debate last week was a prelude to her conceding the Democratic presidential nomination to Barack Obama might want to look at this video. Angered by mailers sent by Barack Obama to Ohio voters on her healthcare plan and NAFTA stances, Clinton lashed out angrily, characterizing it as the worst kind of Rovian tactics.

Time and time again, you hear one thing in speeches and then you see a campaign that has the worst kind of tactics, reminiscent of the same sort of Republican attacks on Democrats. Well, I am here to say, that it is not only wrong, it is undermining core Democratic principles. Since when do Democrats attack one another on Universal Health Care? I thought we were trying to realize Harry Truman’s dream. I thought this campaign finally gave us an opportunity to put together a coalition to achieve Universal Health Care. That’s what Senator Edwards and I fought for and talked about throughout the campaign. Just because Senator Obama chose not to present a Universal Health Care plan does not give him the right to attack me because I did. So, let’s have a real campaign. Enough with the speeches, and the big rallies, then using tactics that are right out of Karl Rove’s playbook. This is wrong. And every Democrat should be outraged, because this is the kind of attack that not only undermines core Democratic values, but gives aid and comfort to very special interests and their allies in the Republican party, who are against doing what we want to do for America. Shame on you, Barack Obama. It’s time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That’s what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio, let’s have a debate over tactics and your behavior in this campaign.

I am sure she felt better getting that off her chest. Unfortunately for her, the press could not care less what she had to say about Obama or what he had to say in his ads. Those were issues, and the press is all about appearances. The subtitle at CNN said it all Hillary Goes Off .
Ignoring the substance of her complaints---that Obama was engaging in deceptive campaign advertising---the media launched into one of its most reprehensible Hillary smears of the campaign, the Hillary is a crazy bitch attack which I describe in previous journals and which you can read about here.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802270010

Between February 25 and February 27, members of the media asserted Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton displayed "mood swings," "could be depressed," "resemble someone with multiple personality disorder," and "has turned into Sybil," an apparent reference to a book and movie about a woman who developed multiple personality disorder after being severely abused as a child.

No one in the press ever called Obama “crazy” or accused him of having MPD for accusing the Clinton camp of using dirty attacks. This has got to be one of the most misogynistic moments in this campaign so far. The message was clear. If a woman speaks up, she must be out of her mind. Better to let Bill be her guard dog than attempt to defend herself with words. Except the press said that was unfair, him being an ex-president and all....

Here comes that double standard again. When Hillary tried to present her own ads about health care and NAFTA, look who stepped in to accuse her of unfair politics. Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle and Ted Kennedy rushed to Obama’s defense and told Hillary to back off.

http://blogs.wispolitics.com/election/2008/02/clinton-kennedy-slam-clinton-mailer.html

One reporter pointed out Obama's own mailers on health care have been labeled attack ads by critics, but Kennedy said they aren't the same thing without elaborating.

In fact, Obama had circulated ads that were modeled on the infamous Harry and Louise ads of the 1990s, in which he echoed unsubstantiated claims first made by the Drudge Report that Hillary would penalize people who did not participate in her health insurance plan.

More evidence of the double standard: In Dec. 2007Steve Kornacki of the The New York Observer went after Hillary for criticizing Barack’s ambition to be president:

http://www.observer.com/2007/clinton-criticizes-obamas-ambition-really

In 1965, fully 100 years after the death of the Confederacy, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, at long last enshrining into federal law the right of all Americans to participate fully and equally in the political process.
The following year, Barack Obama, then a wide-eyed Kindergartener who was suddenly free to dream bigger dreams than his forebears, wrote an essay entitled “I Want to Become President.”
And now the Clinton Machine is attacking him for it.
This past Sunday, Hillary Clinton—faced with the very real possibility that she will lose the Iowa caucuses and, more damningly, the inevitability that has fueled her effort—used a campaign stop in Cedar Rapids, Iowa to declare open season on Mr. Obama, whose has committed the unpardonable sin of not surrendering to her ambition.

Note the interesting phrasing. Though the article is about Obama’s presidency, the author is careful to phrase it as “Hillary’s ambition.” It is a very odd piece. It seems to be saying that Obama does not really want to be president---and therefore, we should elect him. Even more, we owe it to him. Why else bring up the Civil War and the Voting Rights Act if not to make the Obama candidacy part of the larger Civil Rights struggle in the minds of the paper’s liberal readers. Now that the left wing guilt has been activated, it will be clear to anyone that Hillary is brutally crushing the flower of hope which bloomed in the heart of that innocent young child under her stiletto heel---

Eeek! I am starting to sound like Arianna Huffington.

Keep in mind that one month before, in November 2007, Obama felt free to criticize Hillary (the Bitch) for being too ambitious. I am not sure that anyone raised a peep.

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.
Snip
Obama, who represents Illinois, described Clinton as a skilled politician running a textbook campaign but said the textbook itself is badly flawed and skewed against ordinary Americans. "It's a textbook that's all about winning elections but says nothing about how to bring the country together to solve problems," he said.

Say what? Hillary is trying too hard to win and she isn’t being sweet enough. Altogether now. What a bitch!

III. Race Enters the Race

The Big Lie Obama is a Muslim does not really affect the primary much one way or another, as I have already discussed. It is a general election big lie, when Iraq and terra and Al Qaeda will be issues. Therefore, it is probably being fueled by the right wing—which would explain why Drudge and Fox News and right wing internet sites keep the myth alive (even if they insist upon claiming that some anonymous feminazi from the Hillary camp gave them the photo or the info or forced them to print the story ).

However, when race entered the Democratic primary, it helped only one candidate. Barack Obama. In The Press v. Hillary Clinton Pt 2 I showed how the charges that the Clintons engaged in racist politics before South Carolina were fabricated. Here is one of the most concise summaries I have seen about how the Obama camp conflated the lies and distortions for their political gain.

From The Times by Alice Miles
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/alice_miles/article3192712.ece

The thin catalogue of complaints against the Clinton campaign from the Obama campaign were unfounded, manipulative and self-indulgent. At best they called into question the oversensitivity of Mr Obama, at worst they showed him willing to play a divisive race card that is damaging the entire Democratic Party and tarnishing a great and historic electoral contest for the centre Left.
Snip
Mr Obama seems determined to cry “race” whenever anyone attacks him. He has been playing the game carefully, admittedly, allowing spokesmen and leaked memos to speak for him, while publicly denying that he wants to stoke up the race issue.

She goes on to list the charges and debunk them. Should I make this journal even longer by doing so myself? If I don’t some angry poster will not doubt cite “proof” that Hillary is a racist. The truth is that people like Chris Matthews introduced race by accusing New Hampshire voters of racism. Hillary compared herself to LBJ (not MLK Jr) and Barack to JFK. Bill Clinton said Obama’s passionate anti-war history was a “fairy tale” not his campaign. Sheehan was the only Clinton staffer to bring up Obama’s drug use—and he promptly resigned (Penn was invited onto an episode of Hardball in which all Tweety talked about was Obama’s drug use as in did Obama sell drugs, did he share them, and though Penn kept trying to change the subject, Tweety kept bringing it back to Obama and drugs, therefore to say that Penn brought up the issue of “cocaine” is like inviting a man into your house and then accusing him of stealing your oxygen when he breathes. BET’s Johnson was never a staffer. And drugs have nothing to do with race.) All the other crap—dice etc---are no more racially charged than a lightbulb. It was all a fiction---and the Obama camp participated in its creation. How do we know? They were dumb enough to put it in writing. Imagine their relief when the MSM gave them a free pass---for now. It will be in the mud that is flung their way this fall from the McCain camp.

The Obama Race Memo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html
Read the way that the Obama camp lays out the talking points with the mischaracterizations and misquotes. Then compare them to the full quotes in my previous journal and in Alice Miles article. As I posted before, the Democratic Party loves a victim and it hates a bully. Compare them to Obama's stated assertion that he wants to unite the Party not divide it. Why the hell did his campaign create splitter lies like this and distribute them on the eve of the South Carolina primary if they were not trying to create the impression that Hillary was making racist attacks at him? If the memo did not represent Obama's position who was held responsible and made to quit because of it the way that Clinton's adviser had to quit over the drug remarks?

IV. The Final Rule or The Last Straw?

Talk about double standard. All last year, we had Democratic nominees and left wing sites calling it Hillary’s War and calling her Bush-lite . No one seemed to care that she was the front runner and likely nominee and that they were taking away the Democrats’ best weapon to use against the Republicans----our opposition to the war. When Richardson accused her of “flip-flopping” on the war
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/richardsonclinton/
no old party elite types went ballistic in her defense.

When John Edwards wrote on his website "Senator Clinton tonight articulated George Bush’s argument for staying in Iraq”.
http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/iraq/20071030-debate-question-iraq/
the left just nodded its head.

But when Hillary---who had not received a single piece of MSM coverage for her foreign policy position in the entire month of February according to Taylor Marsh (see here)
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27141
created her own media coverage, the Obama camp went wild.

You know, in the old days, when one team came up with ads, the other team came up with their own ads. They did not go whining to the press or the Party about how they were being attacked or victimized. This may play well before a Democratic audience, but it will fall on deaf ears in the general election. Independents and Republicans are not going to give a shit if one candidate says that he or she has been unfairly maligned.

Politics aside, the degree of outrage seems a little extreme. Hillary has some ads that show her as older, wearing glasses, with more experience. She has the 3 am ad---if voters do not already trust her to be reliable and caring and dedicated, the ad falls flat on its face, so I don’t see how Obama can blame her for its success. She is only reminding voters of why they liked her in the first place. Emphasize your strong points and emphasize your opponents weaknesses—that is a normal rule of politics. As for the comparisons to McCain—hell, for the last year and a half most everyone left of the center has been comparing her to Bush and McCain. Why should she get criticized for turning the comparison to her own advantage?

But here we have Gary Hart rushing in to say that Hillary is now damned to Democratic hell for all eternity:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/breaking-the-final-rule_b_90420.html

It will come as a surprise to many people that there are rules in politics. Most of those rules are unwritten and are based on common understandings, acceptable practices, and the best interest of the political party a candidate seeks to lead. One of those rules is this: Do not provide ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party's nominee. This is a hyper-truth where the presidential contest is concerned.

This is utter bullshit. This rule has never applied to the Democratic Party. I have been a Democrat for fifty years, and that is a Republican rule. Republicans are obliged to utter namby-pamby platitudes during their debates and never ever criticize each other or raise a real issue. Republicans are a bunch of mindless goose stepping zombies who allow their Party elites to select their candidate for them--the way they selected McCain. I am not going to have Gary Hart or anyone else tell me that Democrats now have to act like Republicans. I want my candidates to engage in a hearty debate so that I can size them up and select my best choice. I do not want Ted Kennedy choosing my president. And speaking of Ted Kennedy, we all know how well he obeyed this "final rule" in 1980. Gary Hart's article does not even make any sense. Republicans hate Hillary Clinton worse than they hate plague. If they showed Hillary Clinton criticizing Obama, it would make them like him better. What we are really witnessing is the Good Old Boy elite of the Party---Ted Kennedy (who is no position to throw stones about criticizing fellow Dems, just ask Jimmy Carter), Gary Hart, John Kerry and a bunch of others rallying around their presumptive nominee exactly like a bunch of old fashioned party bosses in a smoke filled back room when the vote has not been counted. They all have Republican-itis. They have been out of power so long they are salivating at the thought of getting a new man whom they can control in the White House. I guess they know who will be in charge if Hillary gets the nomination.

What is it that Margaret Carlson wrote last year that should still be true this year?

“The more a frontrunner's status is premised on electability, the more a candidate forgoes appealing to old- fashioned voters who still care about where you stand and who you are, in favor of nailing down those who just want to get over the messy primaries. Forget about falling in love and just fall in line, the better to unite against the real enemy on the other side.
“Electability is less stable than being ahead based on leadership, likeability and standing on the issues.”

I wonder. The press keeps telling us that we should hate Hillary and love Obama, but Hillary does awfully well in open voting elections. Maybe I am not the only one who finds her likeable.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Lets look at what real voters think before we take one last look at what the left wing journalists and bloggers want them to think.

Clinton is viewed favorably by 75% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters. However, that figure includes just 56% of Obama voters. Obama is viewed favorably by 68% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters, a figure that includes 41% of Clinton supporters.
snip
Nationally, McCain is viewed favorably by 51% and unfavorably by 46%. Obama is now viewed favorably by 51% of likely voters nationwide, unfavorably by 46%. Clinton earns positive reviews from 50% of Likely Voters nationwide and negative assessments from 48%

Gallup shows a tie among Democrats
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104839/Gallup-Daily-Obama-47-Clinton-45.aspx

Ok, so America likes them both. Democrats are especially impressed by Hillary. The party has not consigned her to Democratic hell, even though the old party bosses have damned her there for being a witch . Seems like the Democratic rank and file are being their usual ornery selves. How on earth will the Party leaders set them straight before Denver? Maybe some propaganda?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-grahamesmith/the-monster-a-loyal-clin_b_90632.html#postComment

The Monster: A Loyal Clinton Soldier Turns in His Badge
Seth Grahame-Smith
Posted March 9, 2008 | 03:37 PM (EST)
So, rather than step aside and become the hero of her party, she made a strategy decision to go negative in advance of Ohio and Texas. Not just negative -- personal. She cynically chided Mr. Obama's message of hope. She played the victim card. The gender card. The Muslim card. She cried "shame on you, Barack Obama" for his campaign tactics, while (if we're to believe Matt Drudge) simultaneously floating a picture of him in Somali garb to stir up questions of his patriotism.
She accused Mr. Obama of his own shady business deals (the irony of which nearly ripped a hole in the fabric of space/time). She accused him of being two-faced on NAFTA, when it was her campaign that had winked at the Canadians. She demanded that he "reject" the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, but remained silent when Rush Limbaugh stirred up votes for her in Texas. And she crafted the now-infamous "3am" attack ad -- which used scare tactics to highlight Senator Obama's perceived lack of experience in foreign affairs. Straight out of the ol' Atwater/Rove playbook. Of course, all of this paled in comparison to her husband's patronizing, racially insensitive comments earlier in the primary season.

Where do I start? By the time this was printed, we all had known for over a day that Hillary had no contact with Canada, and that only Obama’s advisers had met with the Canadians and then failed to disclose it to their candidate, causing him to lose face before the American press. When the Republicans were telling Republican voters to vote for Obama, Obama welcomed their support, so why should Hillary be any different? Despite all the Whitewater investigations, no wrongdoing was ever proved, making Hillary the most vetted woman in the US. The 3 am ad is only infamous in the minds of the opposition, because it is effective. How do we know the call isn’t about a Hurricane? No one in their right mind would believe Drudge. Obama is the master of playing the victim and the race card was played by his camp—after Tweety and the guys and gals in the MSM got the ball rolling. Pat Buchanan, architect of the Southern Strategy helped a lot.

Sometimes this is too easy.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/13291

Does Hillary Clinton Want John McCain Elected President?
by Brent Budowsky | March 7, 2008 - 8:27am
It is obvious that Hillary Clinton cannot be nominated with a majority of elected delegates and equally obvious that she has embarked on a campaign of personal destruction as her last hope.
I cannot remember a Democratic candidate for president engaging in such totally negative personal attacks against a Democratic opponent, through her comments and through back-channel efforts by her staff, including attempts to play “the Muslim card.”

Please get that man a calculator. As for his second point, who are we going to believe? Drudge, the Moonies, Fox? Next thing you know Karl Rove will get on TV and say “Hillary told me that Obama is a Muslim” and the people at the Huffington Post will say That Karl Rove is a pretty good guy when you get to know him. I’ll be he is angling for a job with Obama.

Someone shoot me. But not yet. I have more to write.

Also from the Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/im-already-against-the-n_b_90628.html

Jane Smiley I'm Already Against the Next War
Posted March 9, 2008 | 03:16 PM (EST)
It's become clear over the last week that the more Hillary Clinton is pressed, the more she reveals her true self. The fact that this self is unscrupulous is bad enough, but the fact that her whole campaign for the last year has been predicated on positioning, spin, and other varieties of public relations is worse. In fact, it is not only worse, it is Bushian, and that is the worst. Even though Clinton won two and a half contests of the four staged on Tuesday, her campaign strategists are fighting among themselves, her campaign is in a turmoil, and, it seems, they can't decide which tack to take. Should they try the lying (about NAFTA, about Obama's religion)? Should they try the cheating (trying to seat delegates from the Florida and Michigan primaries)? Should they try the fear-mongering (the red telephone ad)? Should they try the sucking up to Republicans (spelling out similarities between Clinton and cheerleader-for-war McCain)?

Earth to Smiley. A bunch of people on the left---including some Democratic candidates--spent last year "spelling out similarities between Clinton and cheerleader-for-war McCain". I guess you must have been living under a rock not to notice. And these were people that the Republicans don't hate, so they might actually use some of their words in the general. But this isn't really about what Hillary said, is it?

Sometimes I think that writers like these have forgotten which side of the political spectrum they write for. Some of them seem to be under the impression that they are creating political treatises for good little Republicans who will digest the latest Party talking points as dished out by Will/Broder/Kristol and regurgitate them. Or maybe they know exactly who their target audience is and that is why their prose becomes so hysterical, their metaphors so inflated, their state of panic so elevated as if they want to reach out through the page with their keyboard bruised fingers and grab the working class men and women of America who insist upon making up their own minds based upon their own gut impressions and their own economic interests without paying the slightest bit of attention to what rich former Republican -zine editors think about their candidates.

Clinton is viewed favorably by 75% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters. However, that figure includes just 56% of Obama voters. Obama is viewed favorably by 68% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters, a figure that includes 41% of Clinton supporters.

That statistic must really eat at a lot of people at the Huffington Post. To me, it shows that the majority of the voters in the Democratic Party---the union members, the teachers, the nurses, the day laborers, the retirees, the students, the farmers, the mothers, the fathers, the grandparents and all the rest---it proves that they are wise to the tricks of the Monster that calls itself The American Press . Left, right or unaligned, it has fallen into a miserable state. Even KO, who used to defend Dan Rather’s firing on the grounds that he did not scrutinize AWOL documents that were presented to him by a seemingly reliable source through a plausible chain of custody was recently reduced to this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23521269/

Read it yourself, if you want. It was one of the saddest things I have ever witnessed. An anonymous story based upon hearsay with a faulty conclusion from a man who prides himself upon being a media watchdog.

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
—Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, 1841

[crystal dawn]

1. Common sense is your friend, DU.

Finally a thorough and thoughtful post that is anything but short of common sense. Wake up people, the MSM, Drudge, 98% of journalists are not to be trusted. We are simply being played.

Now I'm off to read parts 1-3...

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

2. That's a lot of work to avoid showing a single slight to Obama. Where's the link to that analysis?

[McCamy Taylor]

3. This is "The Press v. Hillary ". I already did "The Press v. John Edwards". Obama is next.

However, the Clintons are a unique case. The press has felt free to say absolutely anything about them for decades. It is truly amazing. And Hillary seems to be the lightening rod for a lot of people.

I think I hit the nail on the head when I theorized that some project their relationships to their mothers or wives or other female relativesonto Hillary. How else do you explain the intense hate?

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

5. no doubt projection is some of it, but they ain't exactly blameless either.

looking forward to the next installment, too. thanks.

[McCamy Taylor]

4. Dogpile at Buzzflash, What a Hillary bashing line up there is today.

BTW, my heart still belongs to John Edwards, but there is something about a candidate who has weathered the kind of relentless media attacks that Hillary Clinton has endured. I guess it is because I am a Democrat, and we can not stand bullies and we always support the victim.

I think what we are witnessing with the left wing press may be their reaction to the MSM lightning up on Hillary and giving Obama some scrutiny--all of which I predicted would happen as part of "Brokered Democratic Convention" as soon as his delegate count was above hers. The left is outraged. They assumed that the MSM would go on appreciating the inherent superiority and perfection of Obama forever and the witchiness of Clinton forever. Since the MSM will no longer do the job, the liberal press must do the job---and the liberal press approaches this kind of propaganda work with a sledge hammer rather than a scalpel.

Anyway, if you go to Buzzflash today, you can find...

"P.M. Carpenter, The Fifth Columnist: "Would Kennedy Have Forgiven Lady Lyndon Baines Clinton?""

"David Corn: "An Ugly Moment for the Clinton Campaign"'

"Hillary's kiss to McCain may become her own kiss of death -- from the Last Chance Democracy Cafe"

"Clinton Campaign Carries Praise of McCain and Trashing of Obama to New Orwellian Heights Reminiscent -- Well --of the Bush Press Operation."

"Hillary Says The Guy Who Sang "Bomb, Bomb, Iran" Has "Crossed the Threshold" Into Being Able to be Commander in Chief, Just Like Her. Birds of a Feather. Watch the Videotape. 3/9"

"Scant Evidence of Any Substantive Foreign Policy Experience in Clinton's Resume, Despite Embellishments on the Campaign Trail 3/9"

"Girl Used in Recycled Hillary Fear-Mongering Ad is Voting for Obama. Ad Used Stock Footage from Years Ago. 3/9"

"Nor was Senator Clinton finished. In the same session with reporters, she glowed at the thought of herself and John McCain together. "Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold," she said. And again: "I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say. He's never been president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech made in 2002." As other observers have noted, this is the kind of thing you say if you are John McCain's running mate, not what you say if you mean to campaign fiercely against him. It was a remarkably destructive statement--a defection from party loyalty, and a subversion of the principle that is supposed to underlie such loyalty." David Bromwich in the Huffington Post. 3/9

Colbert I. King: Which raises the question: Where was Hillary Clinton when her husband, former president Bill Clinton, made nice with Louis Farrakhan? 3/10


....and these are just the headlines at the top of the scroll.

There are 1001 ways to say that Hillary is a Bitch without actually saying that Hillary is a Bitch.

[shimmergal]

6. McCamy, thank you for the excellent

articles, documenting what some of us have intuited was going on.

Now, as another original John Edwards supporter, I want to search out your Press v. John Edwards series.

Actually, one of the things we need most is a truly unbiased and incorruptible think-tank or other group to keep track of these press outrages. Hopefully to also figure out ways to undermine their influence.

[papau]

7. I agree - thanks McCamy - unfortunately on DU truth has a very low value if not in Obama's favor

[McCamy Taylor]

8. Huffington Post suggests posting Hillary-Spizter photos.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-lewis/spitzer-how-will-the-ne_b_90769.html

Spitzer: How Will The "New Type Of Politics" Handle This? Martin Lewis

Posted March 10, 2008 | 02:31 PM (EST)

The New York Times has broken the Spitzer prostitution story. Other media are all over it.

I wonder how long it will take for standard-issue photographs of Spitzer and Hillary Clinton attending the same events - of which there must inevitably be many - start getting posted all over the blogosphere? Even though those photos will have zero to do with the case. Even though Hillary Clinton will have nothing to do with the story.

Of course as we are now in the age of the "New Type Of Politics" - there won't be any posted.

Right?

Right!

You guys and gals at the Huffington Post do know that this is going onto your permanent record, right? The one that will haunt you for the rest of your life. And no, I am not kidding. There will almost definitely be books written about the media's role in this election. If no one else does one, I will. And you guys are going in it, right alongside Fox News and Chris Matthews....

[LVjinx]

9. Interesting Obama claims to want to end partisanship, but attacks Hillary for actually trying it.

A slight disconnect?