This

How do you "This" nothing?

Kenny B: When will these two gracefully fade into obscurity?

I imagine a good many years after one of them has been president for the next eight. I suggest you begin adapting.

I'll take hillary over W any day of the week!

growinthings: I'll take hillary over W any day of the week!

Thank god we don't have to choose between those two.

The Clinton game plan is to demolish Obama, and they may well succeed only to pay the price in November.

This x 1,000,000.

"I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation."

Barack Obama sounds just like that. He's practiced it, and added nuance.

I've always wondered if MLK actually wrote the "I have a dream" speech.

Reading this article reminds me of what is wrong with the media's coverage of, well, everything.

Eleanor Clift, the journalist of this story, reports on Clinton's dirty tactics in winning this election. She also uses a few quotes from Democrats who do not approve of Clinton's slash and burn politics.

While Clift says that she does, in fact, feel bad for systematic misinformation spread about Obama by the Clintons, she does not go as far as denouncing it. She reports as if she is on the sidelines of some mid-season baseball game, passively informing on who is "winning". She is not outraged by the lies, distortion, and the cut throat tactics caused by someone who wants to be the president of the United States of America.

She also goes on to say that she would actually enjoy the deceit of the American people if it where a Republican that she was going after.

Face it, folks. We're farked.

Frank N Stein: Reading this article reminds me of what is wrong with the media's coverage of, well, everything.

This bugs me as well. Every time the media does a report that uses the "X candidate makes y attack, b candidate makes c attack" format and refuses to fact check, I cringe. This is the reporting that's driving these attacks because they'll be repeated without being denounced or verified.

Frank N Stein: Reading this article reminds me of what is wrong with the media's coverage of, well, everything.

Eleanor Clift, the journalist of this story, reports on Clinton's dirty tactics in winning this election. She also uses a few quotes from Democrats who do not approve of Clinton's slash and burn politics.

While Clift says that she does, in fact, feel bad for systematic misinformation spread about Obama by the Clintons, she does not go as far as denouncing it. She reports as if she is on the sidelines of some mid-season baseball game, passively informing on who is "winning". She is not outraged by the lies, distortion, and the cut throat tactics caused by someone who wants to be the president of the United States of America.

She also goes on to say that she would actually enjoy the deceit of the American people if it where a Republican that she was going after.

Face it, folks. We're farked.

Wishing for the press to become an advocate is a slippery slope. I think the media is already infected too much with the inclination as is. Its like letting the camel get its nose in the tent pretty soon your outside in the cold.

Jennifer

Theres a difference between the press out and saying "X candidate is great" and actively reporting the lies that candidates tell.

Rethorn: Jennifer

Theres a difference between the press out and saying "X candidate is great" and actively reporting the lies that candidates tell.

I would prefer active reporting and leave the logistics of discerning the truth to the viewer rather than be spoon fed some talking heads editorial view.

Jennifer: I would prefer active reporting and leave the logistics of discerning the truth to the viewer rather than be spoon fed some talking heads editorial view.

We're not talking about 'view'. We're talking about 'facts'. Reporters need to check facts.

What you're supporting is the exact reason campaigns act the way Hillary's campaign does. As a candidate, what do you do when all the news agencies simply report what happens without fact-fact checking? If Bill says that some Obama supporters suppressed voters (as he did say), and the media reports what Bill says, the public takes that as truth. Rather they should or should not, they do. It has quite literally ruined our political system and if the few reporters who fact-checked stopped, we'd be in a world of hurt.

Echoic: Jennifer: I would prefer active reporting and leave the logistics of discerning the truth to the viewer rather than be spoon fed some talking heads editorial view.

We're not talking about 'view'. We're talking about 'facts'. Reporters need to check facts.

What you're supporting is the exact reason campaigns act the way Hillary's campaign does. As a candidate, what do you do when all the news agencies simply report what happens without fact-fact checking? If Bill says that some Obama supporters suppressed voters (as he did say), and the media reports what Bill says, the public takes that as truth. Rather they should or should not, they do. It has quite literally ruined our political system and if the few reporters who fact-checked stopped, we'd be in a world of hurt.

Ah so you lament the elusive "facts" is that it? I see but, isn't it a fact Bill Clinton said the things you attributed to him? If you agree he did say them then do you propose his statement should be censored?

Bill saying something or Obama is in itself news worthy. Should later "facts" prove those statements disengenuious they become even more so. The jury is still out and these inccidents claimed by both sides are under investigation. So perhaps time will elaborate and deliver conseqences when facts are pinned down.

Jennifer: Wishing for the press to become an advocate is a slippery slope. I think the media is already infected too much with the inclination as is. Its like letting the camel get its nose in the tent pretty soon your outside in the cold.

I agree, journalists should do what they can to avoid providing the truth to their readers.

Jennifer: Ah so you lament the elusive "facts" is that it? I see but, isn't it a fact Bill Clinton said the things you attributed to him? If you agree he did say them then do you propose his statement should be censored?

Bill saying something or Obama is in itself news worthy. Should later "facts" prove those statements disengenuious they become even more so. The jury is still out and these inccidents claimed by both sides are under investigation. So perhaps time will elaborate and deliver conseqences when facts are pinned down.


That is the single farking dumbest argument I have EVER heard. I'm almost certain you don't even understand the definition of simple words like "fact", "censor" and "statement".

FuriousGeorge945: Jennifer: Wishing for the press to become an advocate is a slippery slope. I think the media is already infected too much with the inclination as is. Its like letting the camel get its nose in the tent pretty soon your outside in the cold.

I agree, journalists should do what they can to avoid providing the truth to their readers.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or is that just your actual conception. I never suggested the media do any such thing. My intimation is the reader/viewer to utilize critical thinking rather than rely on a glorified media sock puppet to do so for them.

Jennifer: Are you being deliberately obtuse or is that just your actual conception. I never suggested the media do any such thing. My intimation is the reader/viewer to utilize critical thinking rather than rely on a glorified media sock puppet to do so for them.


So you think that if someone makes a statement that is patently untrue, it is the duty of the reporter to merely parrot this statement and hope that the readers go out and find the truth?

FuriousGeorge945: Jennifer: Ah so you lament the elusive "facts" is that it? I see but, isn't it a fact Bill Clinton said the things you attributed to him? If you agree he did say them then do you propose his statement should be censored?

Bill saying something or Obama is in itself news worthy. Should later "facts" prove those statements disengenuious they become even more so. The jury is still out and these inccidents claimed by both sides are under investigation. So perhaps time will elaborate and deliver conseqences when facts are pinned down.


That is the single farking dumbest argument I have EVER heard. I'm almost certain you don't even understand the definition of simple words like "fact", "censor" and "statement".

Clearly you are the one struggling with or outright incapable of grasping the meaning from a coherent argument.

Jennifer: FuriousGeorge945: Jennifer: Ah so you lament the elusive "facts" is that it? I see but, isn't it a fact Bill Clinton said the things you attributed to him? If you agree he did say them then do you propose his statement should be censored?

Bill saying something or Obama is in itself news worthy. Should later "facts" prove those statements disengenuious they become even more so. The jury is still out and these inccidents claimed by both sides are under investigation. So perhaps time will elaborate and deliver conseqences when facts are pinned down.


That is the single farking dumbest argument I have EVER heard. I'm almost certain you don't even understand the definition of simple words like "fact", "censor" and "statement".

Clearly you are the one struggling with or outright incapable of grasping the meaning from a coherent argument.

I think I have to add "coherent" to my previous list of words you apparently don't understand.

Jennifer: So perhaps time will elaborate and deliver conseqences when facts are pinned down.

You're obviously new to American politics if you think that's even a remote possibility.

FuriousGeorge945: Jennifer: Are you being deliberately obtuse or is that just your actual conception. I never suggested the media do any such thing. My intimation is the reader/viewer to utilize critical thinking rather than rely on a glorified media sock puppet to do so for them.


So you think that if someone makes a statement that is patently untrue, it is the duty of the reporter to merely parrot this statement and hope that the readers go out and find the truth?

First we would have to agree that the statement is patently untrue which we don't. The facts are not yet ascertained. Also I have said and will reiterate its a viewers duty to scrutinize the media. Certainley you don't suggest we believe everything we read or watch?

Echoic: Jennifer: So perhaps time will elaborate and deliver conseqences when facts are pinned down.

You're obviously new to American politics if you think that's even a remote possibility.

What precludes it from the realm of possibility? If the story has legs there's someone who's going to track it down and make a name for themselves by delivering it. The scoop would be front-page news supported by the necessary material to authenticate it.

If there is a story there it will be told why should we doubt that? That goes for either scenario by the way if Obamas people intimidated Clintons or vice-versa.

Jennifer: Ah so you lament the elusive "facts" is that it? I see but, isn't it a fact Bill Clinton said the things you attributed to him? If you agree he did say them then do you propose his statement should be censored?

Bill saying something or Obama is in itself news worthy. Should later "facts" prove those statements disengenuious they become even more so. The jury is still out and these inccidents claimed by both sides are under investigation. So perhaps time will elaborate and deliver conseqences when facts are pinned down.

I strongly disagree with your premise. Part of the function of the fourth estate is as an advocate for the people in a political setting. This function is carried out by challenging the truth of statements made by political figures, and the validity of the actions carried out by political figures.

The press is not supposed to take a passive stance when reporting the words that politicians say. There was a time when statements were quoted by the press in one breath, then savaged for their lack of candor in the next. The idea that facts are somehow malleable to political expedience is part of the problem with our system currently. And by passively consenting to this thesis one becomes part of the reason for the government's slide into the toilet.

Jennifer: First we would have to agree that the statement is patently untrue which we don't. The facts are not yet ascertained.

I agree this is the case with the voter fraud accusations by both sides. That's a gray area thats rather hard to be absolutely certain of. However, Echoic's original complaint holds true for plenty of things that have been absolutely proven. A couple of examples of this are the distortion of Obama's Reagan statements, the mailers questioning his pro-choice stance, the mailers claiming he would "pass a trillion dollars tax increase on hard working middle class families", the misrepresentation of his Iraq war position and the Clintons claims about the teachers union lawsuit in Nevada. Most of the media was content to report on these things, then report that Obama disputes these claims and call it a day. They were all obviously untrue if you do any amount of research or contextualization. What Echoic and I are arguing is that reporters SHOULD make an effort to find out the truth, instead of just getting each side of the story.

Here is an excellent look at why such reporting is important.

Jennifer: Also I have said and will reiterate its a viewers duty to scrutinize the media. Certainley you don't suggest we believe everything we read or watch?

I don't suggest that we do, but I suggest that it certainly does happen in most cases. I don't see any harm at all in having reporters calling someone on their lies when they're saying things that are obviously counter to the facts.

Jennifer: If the story has legs there's someone who's going to track it down and make a name for themselves by delivering it. The scoop would be front-page news supported by the necessary material to authenticate it.

What are you talking about? The exact situation is happening now and what you're describing IS NOT HAPPENING.

Echoic: What are you talking about? The exact situation is happening now and what you're describing IS NOT HAPPENING.

Exactly. The only places you really find it being shown as more than "candidate x said this, candidate y disputed this claim" are op-eds, fact checking sites and other out of the way sources that the average person will never see. Most people don't have the time or don't really care enough to look into these things. Politicians lie because it is absolutely effective. People will either hear one side from the news and they'll believe it, or they hear one side, hear that the other person disputed the claim, and then just see the issue as completely muddied, which is usually just as good for the liar as if they believed it.

You can't do that, Bill.

Code_Archeologist: Jennifer: Ah so you lament the elusive "facts" is that it? I see but, isn't it a fact Bill Clinton said the things you attributed to him? If you agree he did say them then do you propose his statement should be censored?

Bill saying something or Obama is in itself news worthy. Should later "facts" prove those statements disengenuious they become even more so. The jury is still out and these inccidents claimed by both sides are under investigation. So perhaps time will elaborate and deliver conseqences when facts are pinned down.

I strongly disagree with your premise. Part of the function of the fourth estate is as an advocate for the people in a political setting. This function is carried out by challenging the truth of statements made by political figures, and the validity of the actions carried out by political figures.

The press is not supposed to take a passive stance when reporting the words that politicians say. There was a time when statements were quoted by the press in one breath, then savaged for their lack of candor in the next. The idea that facts are somehow malleable to political expedience is part of the problem with our system currently. And by passively consenting to this thesis one becomes part of the reason for the government's slide into the toilet.

I do not consent or condone I merely accept reality.
The reality is you seek for the press to aspire to a loftier sense of idealism than its obviously evident their capable of. I would relish a media you describe but the reality is we are saddled with something far less altruistic.

Today's media is prostituted to the highest bidder and caters without chagrin to their whims. That is the way to which facts have become malleable to the extent they meet the bottom line.
Media even a media savaged by corporate interest however can still serve a useful service. We just need to be cognizant of its influences and scrutinize the messages we receive.

Passive or not we must not let our power of scrutiny be usurped by becoming beguiled by some corporate lap dog. Media is to be filtered carefully in light its only interested in the facts as long as they coexist with the primary interest of turning a profit.

FuriousGeorge945: Jennifer: First we would have to agree that the statement is patently untrue which we don't. The facts are not yet ascertained.

I agree this is the case with the voter fraud accusations by both sides. That's a gray area thats rather hard to be absolutely certain of. However, Echoic's original complaint holds true for plenty of things that have been absolutely proven. A couple of examples of this are the distortion of Obama's Reagan statements, the mailers questioning his pro-choice stance, the mailers claiming he would "pass a trillion dollars tax increase on hard working middle class families", the misrepresentation of his Iraq war position and the Clintons claims about the teachers union lawsuit in Nevada. Most of the media was content to report on these things, then report that Obama disputes these claims and call it a day. They were all obviously untrue if you do any amount of research or contextualization. What Echoic and I are arguing is that reporters SHOULD make an effort to find out the truth, instead of just getting each side of the story.

Here is an excellent look at why such reporting is important.

Jennifer: Also I have said and will reiterate its a viewers duty to scrutinize the media. Certainley you don't suggest we believe everything we read or watch?

I don't suggest that we do, but I suggest that it certainly does happen in most cases. I don't see any harm at all in having reporters calling someone on their lies when they're saying things that are obviously counter to the facts.

I don't disagree with you in principle but inequity of non-reporting is symptomatic to both sides. You cite several examples of Obama complaints and ignore an equal amount of Clinton complaints. Such as the way Obama's camp has misrepresented remarks made by Hillary to paint them as somehow racially insensitive or worse. Other remarks were mischaracterized as well.

By the way not that anyone's counting points but it looks as if Obama's attacks have had a greater effect than Clintons. Just look at the way the black vote has swung in Obama's direction and you can see some correlation.

It might be a more level playing field than you realize if you look closer. If anything I would say Obama's supporters are thus far winning in the negative campaign tactics.

UGH, I had a pretty lengthy response almost finished but then hit refresh on the wrong tab... I'll just boil it down to the most basic part: show me where Obama or people directly tied to his campaign make anywhere near the kind of attacks that Hillary's side has. Where has he lied in ways so clearly counter to the truth about her like the way her campaign has done repeatedly on several issues? Not to mention that attempt to disenfranchise voters in Nevada when an endorsement didn't go her way....

The thing that struck me the most about is how ridiculously stupid the implications of those attacks are. Are we supposed to believe that Obama, a fairly liberal democrat, is a closet Reagan supporter and some kind of trojan horse candidate that's going to get into office and suddenly bring back Reaganomics? Or that he was publicly opposed to the war in 2002, then for some reason changed his mind and was in favor of it in 2003-2005 after it had become obvious that every rationale for it was a lie and it was steadily devolving into a civil war clusterfark? This stuff doesn't even make sense and it is an insult to the intelligence of democratic voters.

As for his increased poll numbers being evidence of his attacks somehow working, I suppose you could look at it that way. But again, I don't really see any attacking like the way both Clintons have gone after him. If anything it is supporters moving away from Clinton out of disgust for how she's run her campaign, which is somewhat evidenced by the fact that Edwards' poll numbers have also slightly crept up as hers have gone down.

Oh, and as for claims of race baiting on the part of the Clintons: those are far from being confined only to Obama's campaign. Plenty of black people were upset over the things they said. Whether they were intentional or not is up for debate, but the fact that these little slips suddenly started to crop up frequently when Obama started to become a real threat for the nomination makes it seem like a lot more than a coincidence.

The attacks on Obama, on the other hand, are purely the creation of the Clinton campaign.

People like Elanor Clift are excited for a Clinton administration, because it will provide them with 4-8 years of fresh material for their columns.

But they are all still avoiding the fundamental question:

Can Hillary Clinton provide true leadership on her own, or will she rely on her husband to fight her battles for her?

Brothers! We should be struggling together against the common enemy!

My new theory is that Bill really is jealous off Hillary maybe being in the White House and is trying to sabotage her campaign by being a general jackass.

Eleanor (silent "f") Clift has been a hack apologist for the Clintons going back (at least) to 1991.

Her column is not reporting, it's commentary, which by definition is her opinion, though. It should be taken as such.

Another soft, lame-ass, fence-sitting shiat-bag of an opinion from a person that makes Juan Williams look intelligent.

The only reason to watch the McLaughlin Group was so that every times that sniveling, whiny little biatch opened her mouth either me or my roommates wousl yell "Eleanor, you dumb biatch. Shut the fark up."

Made for a good warm-up before ESPN.

Good times.

/Eleanor, you dumb biatch. Shut the fark up.
//Obama 2008

T-Servo

Brothers! We should be struggling together against the common enemy!

The Judean People's Front?!

Kenny B: When will these two gracefully fade into obscurity?

I'd like to introduce you to the Baby Boomers.

Oh, there's reporting involved, of course, but it's not *news* reporting, i.e., the stuff that's supposed to be impartial.

E.J. Dionne had a recent column critical of the Clintons' low road campaign tactics.

Where were you the last 16 years, E.J.?

Cool!

/subby

What's with Jennifer talking like the architecht from Matrix Reloaded?

Argh...

The Clintons piss me off...and I actually used to like Bill Clinton.

What they're trying to do to Obama is dirty Atwater/Rove style bullshiat, and the media needs to start pointing it out. Otherwise we'll end up with Hillary vs. _________ in November, and _________ will win.

Jennifer: Ah so you lament the elusive "facts" is that it? I see but, isn't it a fact Bill Clinton said the things you attributed to him? If you agree he did say them then do you propose his statement should be censored?

Bill saying something or Obama is in itself news worthy. Should later "facts" prove those statements disengenuious they become even more so. The jury is still out and these inccidents claimed by both sides are under investigation. So perhaps time will elaborate and deliver conseqences when facts are pinned down.

you are too caught up in the world of media where every time britney farts it causes a story.

bill clinton speaking, no matter what the words are, is not newsworthy. what bill clinton is saying might be, but not because he is saying, it must be newsworthy on its own merits. and one of those merits is it being TRUE.

Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering....

In a perfect world people would simply laugh at the Clinton's desperate attempts to discredit and undermine a good man by pointing out that he is *gasp* young and black! But sadly dirty campaigning tends to be effective. Wonder what their strategy will be if they win the nomination and have to go up against John McCain. Call up Karl Rove and get him to fill them in on the "illegitimate black baby" story?

Its no point replacing Bush if the person that does plays the same brand of divisive fear-mongering politics.

It's funny, the last seven years have made Bill Clinton look like a farkin genius! And now, within the space of a few months, he's managed to remind us of why we were so glad to be rid of him.

Give that man a cigar, he may just disintegrate any chance a Democrat has of winning the election come November by debasing the candidates into little more than schoolyard bullies hurling racial epithets at each other.

Some farkin' genius.

FTFA: On Thursday, under heavy pressure from assorted Democrats, the Clinton campaign withdrew a radio spot playing in South Carolina that had Obama calling the Republicans "the party of ideas" and then linking his quote out of context to "special tax breaks for Wall Street. Running up a $9 trillion debt. Refusing to raise the minimum wage or deal with the housing crisis. Are those the ideas Barack Obama's talking about?"

Quatchi is really starting to dislike these people.

Hillary wants to play gender politics. It's the freakin' leit-motif of her campaign. A Vote fer Hill is vote fer sistahood and all that. Obama wants to leave divisive politics behind and gather together a real coalition of the willing, centrists sick of wot the country has become and rightfully afraid of where it's going. Barack must be feeling like Michael Corleone in the Godfather III by now.

Everytime I think I'm out (of the game of divisive race baiting politics) They draw me back in"

Barack has taken great pains to distance himself from being percieved as "THE black candidate" but Camp ClintCo has crazyglued the label on him nonetheless.

Oh well, only stupid people will prolly fall for that trick.

Wait a minute...

Damn! That means Hill has won already. Anyhoo, gonna keep an eye on the exit polls again maybe somebody can catch her rigging the primary results THIS time.

bill clinton will be dead within 5 years or wish he was. How much nose candy do you think that guy has used since leaving the
White House?