‘How do we beat the bitch?’
14 November 2007 12:11 am by Taylor Marsh
via Greg Sargent and Salon.com
Inquiring minds want to know.
But don’t forget that McCain respects any nominee of the Democrat
party. Oh, but come to think of it “that’s an excellent question.”
And people wonder why I’m willing to continue to take flack for providing
the facts on Clinton, even as others do not and attack me for all manner of
imagined sins.
This is on “The Page,” hack
central for Mark Halperin:
Voters see Clinton as electable panderer ready to be president.
Halperin makes this “analysis” from reading a piece written by Adam
Nagourney (and reported by others as well) for The
New York Times. The actual text from which Halperin scribes his hackery
is quite a bit more complex, but Halperin, famous for his wingnut scribblings
on ABC’s “The Note,” would rather use a one line zinger. Notice he
doesn’t say anything else about any other candidate in this post, only Clinton. I mention
this because of the general election, because if, and it’s not
over yet, but if Clinton is our nominee we need to understand
what we’ll get from Halperin, who has quite a reach. Jot it down.
Then there’s this from TNR:
Despite all the grumbling, however, the press has showered Hillary
with strikingly positive coverage.
What’s Crowley smoking? Wrong on the facts. But that’s nothing new where Clinton
is concerned.
 |
Just five candidates have been the focus of more than half of all the coverage.
Hillary Clinton received the most (17% of stories), though she can thank the
overwhelming and largely negative attention of conservative talk radio hosts
for much of the edge in total volume. Barack Obama was next (14%), with Republicans
Giuliani, McCain, and Romney measurably behind (9% and 7% and 5% respectively).
As for the rest of the pack, Elizabeth Edwards, a candidate spouse, received
more attention than 10 of them, and nearly as much as her husband.
In the same story, Crowley points out just how tough the Clinton camp can be
on the press: And so, the Clinton team let Times reporter Patrick Healy,
who covers the Hillary beat, know about their “annoyance” with the
story, as Healy later put it.
“Annoyance”? Poor baby, how does Mr. Healy stand that kind
of heat. The Clinton team is really mean! This from a guy who continually
covers the Clinton marriage like he’s an ace reporter from Soap Opera Weekly.
Insert a picture of Chris Matthews drooling here.
While we know very little about Barack Obama and just what he wants to do as
president. Steve Soto covered this yesterday, touching on the lack of what
does Mr. Obama believe on policy? ** insert crickets here ** just look at that face!:
It’s normal for a neophyte candidate on the national stage to get puffed
up from his own glowing “anyone but Hillary” press clippings and
on-air fluffings from the likes of Matthews and Russert. But if Obama is going
to campaign between now and Iowa on this “put me on a pedestal”
theme, then the Hillary campaign can make some hay over Mr. Obama’s infalliability
and righteousness. Of course, when Hillary brings it up, Obama will adopt
his own version of the “they’re ganging up on me” defense by saying
she’s resorting to the politics of destruction. But the more and more Obama
talks about himself as a righteous, never-wrong truth teller with correct
instincts, who runs away from Washington, the more and more he resembles another
candidate who bamboozled us back in 2000.
Obama’s halo is still in place because the traditional media has fallen in
love with him.
Does anyone else care that the press is ignoring Edwards rising up again in
Iowa? Or that Obama’s guy David Plouffe is ripping Edwards from the back? The hack pack
press is too enthralled with Mr. anti-Washington, even though that candidate
is actually John Edwards.
But nothing comes close to the recent Obama love-fest from Chris Matthews.
If you didn’t see “Hardball”
on Monday you missed quite a spectacle. It was a continuation of Russert’s
what are you going to do about air travel – what are you going to wear on
Halloween – and while we’re at it, what do you think about life beyond earth?
softballs. Smoking was optional afterwards.
MATTHEWS: You know, I got to say this, in watching this, in scoring this,
I got to say bull‘s-eye, bull‘s-eye, bull‘s-eye, bull‘s-eye,
bulls-eye, every one directly at the heart of Hillary Clinton‘s campaign.
I‘m not making it personal and your guy‘s not making it personal.
But every one of those charges is directly targeted at what I would consider
objectively the nature of the Clinton campaign.(snip)
MATTHEWS: Good for you.
AXELROD: … for doing a great job.
MATTHEWS: Good for him. David, let‘s get—let‘s get a little
more of your candidate. Here‘s Senator Obama again…AXELROD: OK. Love to hear him.
(snip)
MATTHEWS: David, I wouldn‘t have believed it possible, but I think
I heard Bob and Jack and Martin all at once there.(snip)
MATTHEWS: … growing up in a church, but that had the rhythm, the cadence
of a black church, as much as I‘m familiar with one, I got to tell you,
from politics. And I got to tell you, there was a bit of Martin King in that
guy, Martin Luther King. I heard that plaintive call for hope at the end.
It wasn‘t just Bobby and Jack, it was this other voice I heard for the
first time Saturday night. It was—it was great stuff. And I‘m
as romantic as anybody else in this business. I don‘t mind admitting
it. I‘m not some cold-hearted guy…
And he calls his show “Hardball.” Hah!
At least Matthews didn’t ask Axelrod how they were going to beat the b—-.
