MyDD :: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos, Goes After O'Reilly

Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos, Goes After O'Reilly

by Jonathan Singer, Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 12:47:09 PM EST

With the risk of being all Clinton, all the time this morning on MyDD, I want to pass along a statement posted by the Clinton campaign on Daily Kos this morning defending the Yearly Kos convention and taking Bill O'Reilly to task for using comments out of context to malign the netroots.

HOWARD WOLFSON:

"Blogs are the 21st Century version of the public square. Sen. Clinton does not agree with everything said on Daily Kos, but isolating a few comments as a way to smear a blog frequented by hundreds of thousands of people a day is wrong. Certainly you would understand this when you look at some of the extreme views guests on your show have advocated over the years. Here are just a few examples:

"You've hosted Michael Savage, who has called MLK Jr. Day a "racket" designed to steal `white males' birthright.'

"You've hosted David Horowitz, who has called Democrats `apologists for terrorists.'

"You've hosted, Ann Coulter who said of the 9/11 widows: `I have never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much.'

"It wouldn't be reasonable to attribute these views to you and it's not reasonable for you to attribute every comment on Daily Kos to everyone who attends the YearlyKos convention. Sen. Clinton is looking forward to attending YearlyKos."

Thanks

Howard Wolfson

Communications Director, Clinton Campaign

Let's start with a caveat before we get into the substance of this post. Hillary Clinton was the last major candidate to announce her participate in the Yearly Kos convention. While it's certainly good news and a sign of good faith that she agreed to participate in the presidential forum next month, had the other candidates waited as long to agree to attend the forum never would have happened. (In other words, kudos to John Edwards, Barack Obama and the others who long before signed on.)

That said, this statement strikes exactly the right tone. The Clinton campaign is going to bat for the Yearly Kos convention, and to an extent Daily Kos and the progressive blogosphere as well, while at the same time attacking Bill O'Reilly. Not many campaigns show a willingness to stand by an organization when the words of some of its members are bent and twisted out of context in such a way that it makes it seem far out of the mainstream.

I might not use the word "detente" to describe this move, because there hasn't exactly been a war raging between the Clinton campaign and the netroots as of late. But it is a fairly shrewd political move by the campaign, one that, however superficial, could nonetheless engender some positive feelings towards Clinton within those attending the convention.

Tags: Yearly Kos, Hillary Clinton, Bill O'Reilly (all tags)

Permalink :: 75 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos, Goes Afte (none / 0)

They must be reading the tea leaves. Has Carville or Begala ever said a kind work about the progressive blogosphere or Howard Dean?

Mark Penn must have done some polling.

by rosebowl on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 12:59:43 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos, Goes Afte (3.00 / 2)

Neither Carville nor Begala work for Hillary Clinton. The same is true for George Stephanapoulos or Dick Morris. These association games a la "7 steps to Kevin Bacon" are fun, but the background-operatives have been playing musical chairs and are largely interchangeable as it is. Look at Obama (your candidate, right?) employing AXELROD as campaign manager and ROBERT GIBBS as his spokesman. Since you mention Howard Dean, you may be surprised to find out that it was ROBERT GIBBS who swiftboated Howard Dean beyond recognition into an Osama Bin-Ladin clone.

by georgep on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:08:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos, Goes Afte (none / 0)

I'm all for supporting the progressive blogosphere. It's good to see Hillary on board. But lets not kid ourselves -- The entrenched interests within the Clinton camp have been dismissive of online progressive activists, on issues like building a 50-state strategy and net neutrality.

It's campaign season and this is a political move by the Clinton camp to assuage blog activists.

by rosebowl on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:27:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos, Goes Afte (3.00 / 1)

And the blogsphere hates on the Clintons and all non liberals. But were a big tent party. Thats life. Cooperation is the solution. I've seen a lot of things that the Clintons have done for progressive values, things they believe in. What have progressives done for the Clintons?

by world dictator on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:29:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos, Goes Afte (none / 0)

Great comment and so true.

by changehorses08 on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:50:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos, Goes Afte (none / 0)

Progressives are apparently going to let Hillary take the nomination without any kind of a coherent fight. Is that good enough for you?

It says a lot about the kind of person who would support Hillary when they make statements like:

"What have progressives done for the Clintons?"

Excuse me, but in a democracy, politicians do things for people, not the other way around. Progressives don't owe the Clintons anything. As a matter of fact, the only thing progressives should do is remove the knife the Clintons have planted in their backs and fling it right back at them. We should take that tentpole of the "big tent" party and do something Biblically-unkind to the Clintons.

"ex nihilo nihil fit"

by Lassallean on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 02:41:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos, Goes Afte (none / 0)

How many progressive votes do you have in the Senate?

How many progressive votes in the house?

Enough to get anything passed? Thought so.

Where are these major progressive victories in the last 20 years?

Minimum wage increases?

Increasing healthcare access to children?

Increase Gun Control?

Securing a woman's right to choose?

Man I could go on all day.

by world dictator on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 03:08:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos, Goes Afte (none / 0)

The Great Society was only 30 years ago. We'll come back, don't worry.

"ex nihilo nihil fit"

by Lassallean on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 04:31:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos, Goes Afte (none / 0)

eh, 40 years, sorry, it's been longer than I thought.

...still coming back...

...

"ex nihilo nihil fit"

by Lassallean on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 04:32:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos, Goes Afte (3.00 / 1)

"We should take that tentpole of the "big tent" party and do something Biblically-unkind to the Clintons."

So, what qualifies as actual HATE-SPEECH around here? What this poster here goes on about is clearly hate-filled and despicable venom. Of course, I will be told by some "apologists" that this poster just expresses an opinion, but it is really nothing but garbage and should be condemned strongly, even by those who are not Clinton supporters.

by georgep on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 09:40:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos, Goes Afte (none / 0)

You apparently aren't subtle enough to distinguish metaphor from literal declaration. In your world, books and pamphlets would have child-proof caps. What a boring, it-takes-a-village-kind-of-world that would be.

Hate speech. Heh. I'll tell you what hate speech is. Hate speech is voting "aye" to send thousands of young people to their deaths in Iraq and then not even having the decency to apologize when it turned out to be a mistake. People are dying right at this moment, and you are busy calling me hate-filled because I want a president who will stop it? Not when we get an oil law, not when Iraq is a secure state. Not when the Maliki government feels like it. RIGHT THE HELL NOW! Any president who would extend our presense in Iraq for any reason belongs in the slammer next to Bush. There's your hate speech. People are dying. The time for your Nerf-world civility is over!

"ex nihilo nihil fit"

by Lassallean on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 10:10:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos, Goes Afte (none / 0)

Blablabla. What are you going to do when Clinton is our nominee? Jump off some bridge somewhere? Get a grip on yourself or your bitterness will consume you whole.

by georgep on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 04:03:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos, Goes Afte (none / 0)

You are so busy attacking anyone who criticizes Clinton that you don't lift a finger to justify her positions. You changed the conversation to my alleged bitterness instead of defending her position on the war.

You know what that makes you? An uncritical, partisan tool. I like Edwards. When someone says to me, you know Edwards voted for the war, I say: "I know. You have a good point. He's offered his apology. It's all in whether you think his apology is sincere. I do. If you don't; if you can't forgive him - I understand. A lot of people are dead, and I understand your unwillingness to forgive."

But that's not what you do. What you do is attack the author of criticism instead of responding to it. That approach is antithetical to civic discourse and democracy. You are just a partisan mouthpiece, parroting your empty phrases and ad hominem attacks because you belong to a cult of personality.

So here's some ad hominem attacks for you that I hope will end our coversation:

I cannot believe I have responded to you as much as I have. At first, I thought you were a well-intentioned partisan who wanted to keep dialog respectful. I could disagree with you, but I admired your fortitude. Now, I see that you are a simpleton who cannot understand such basic literary devices as hyperbole, editorial comment, and metaphor. Pray God that you never read "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift. You would be screaming in the streets that some guy actually intended for the rich to eat Irish babies.

There's some evidence to show that Clinton runs strongest with low information voters. Now I know that she runs pretty well with low intelligence voters as well. What will I do if Clinton is our nominee? I will hold my nose and vote for her, that's what I'll do. And I'll continue living with the hope that one day I can go into an election booth and vote for someone I believe in rather than "the lesser of two evils." Because that's all Clinton could ever be. Her husband made that abundantly clear during his presidency. Yes, Mr. Clinton, yesterday wasn't that bad. But only in comparison to Bush. Lesser of two evils. That's your candidate's only currency.

I really can't believe that my "bitterness" is worth more of a response than thousands of dead people in Iraq. I have friends in Iraq right now (you see, my generation and my friends are actually giving the blood that you and Hillary have demanded to maintain your imperialist lifetsyles). You must be either stupid or evil. I'll kindly assume the former, but if you continue to dodge Hillary's support of the war in favor of attacking those who bring it up, you risk giving the impression that you are evil.

"ex nihilo nihil fit"

by Lassallean on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:07:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos, Goes Afte (none / 0)

Oh, and here's evidence of my "bitterness" and inability to have respect for people with whom I disagree:

"Good point. It all depends on whether you think Edwards' apology is sincere or not. I think he's sincere.

As for Richardson, he certainly has the credentials, and he's certainly not one who will act on anything but solid evidence. What troubles me about him is his domestic policy. He uses DLC buzz words like "pro-growth Democrat." By implication, he is saying that left wing Democrats are anti-growth. The question is and always has been: growth for whom? Progressives want to reallocate wealth to the poor and lower middle class to stimulate demand. Richardson and the DLC are supply-siders, i.e. they think giving tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy will create jobs and encourage production. It's all about which side of the equation you favor. He favors the wrong side, the Reagan side, IMHO."

- that was me just the other day to a Richardson supporter on his concerns about Edwards and why Richardson isn't the Democrat for me.

That's how you argue in a democratic society. Take notes.

"ex nihilo nihil fit"

by Lassallean on Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:14:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (3.00 / 1)

Clinton going to bat for the blogosphere against the right-wing (represented by Bill O' Reilly) shows where she sees herself in the political spectrum. As a progressive I am heartened to see the sphere warming up to her more and more. She could have easily kept out of the fray to score political points with those (even in the Democratic party) who think of the lefty blogosphere as an insignificant, even detrimental offshoot of the Democratic universe. She did no such thing, instead she went all out for us. Kudos to Mrs. Clinton.

by georgep on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:03:51 PM EST

Re: (none / 0)

ONce again it was one of the CLintons going to attack against the Right wingers only when they are involved. Bil O Reilly has been insulting moveon and dkos for years. Yet the only time Hillary defends them is to make sure she doesnt get tarred by association.

FWIW, it was a fairly decent news release. But let's not lose perspective. She did nothing for Dkossers in the past. And even now, she really says most are not as bad as a few isolated ones instead of saying how proud she is of the DKOS community. Contrast that with how Wes Clark defended Soros and MOveon when O Reilly tried to attack them when he was on.

by Pravin on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 02:49:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Seriously, your candidate (Obama, right?) has never defended Dkos or the blogosphere against right-wing attacks, from what I have seen. NOT ONCE. In fact, he is very careful to NEVER use the word DEMOCRAT in any of his emails, releases, literature. It is pretty amazing for you to attack Clinton on this issue when your candidate keeps the blogosphere at arms length. What exactly has he done for Dkossers?

by georgep on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 09:46:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

I did not attack her. I said not to orgasm over this defense. It was OK as I said. Just nothing to slobber all over consideiring she has a history of fighting right wingers only when it comes to self interest. I guess it is better than nothing.

And Obama is not my #1 yet. He is in my top 2. It is this kind of indifference I see from him that has made him less than a lock for me to support. SO yes, I do hold it against him. We all haven't made our minds up this early in a process. I got 3 or 4 choices right now.

by Pravin on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 10:01:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

kudos, wtf (none / 0)

Anybody who thinks this was anything more than pandering is a moron. The Clintons are years late in recognizing where the real power and energy of the Democratic Party is. They can pander to it, but they will never be part of it. If they get away with pandering, they will never respect it, so they will betray it.

O'Reilly gets drama/viewers, Clintons get dumb, pander-hungry votes, Murdoch gets his candidate. Maybe Murdoch can recycle ad revenue from O'Reilly's increased viewership into another fat check for the Clinton campaign.

by jforshaw on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 03:54:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kudos, wtf (none / 0)

As if YOUR candidate was a great dkosser or has "recognized where the real power and energy is." If Clinton is years late, Obama has not even started "getting it."

I don't begrudge him wanting to be the "centrist" candidate, so keeping his exposure in the left blogosphere (which the right-wing has identified as the "enemy") to a minimum makes sense for him. But his supporters should not be flapping their mouths about Clinton and the blogosphere when Obama has done a poor job connecting himself, in fact, of the three he is probably last in that department.

by georgep on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 09:50:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos, (none / 0)

But I thought the Clintons hate blogs...

I thought the Clintons stood for evil corporations and not progressive values...

I thought that moderates and DLCers were basically republicans...

A lot of people need to be eating shit right now.

by world dictator on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:13:11 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos, (none / 0)

It's called smart politics!

by DoIT on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:42:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Naive, You Think only Clinton panders??? (none / 0)

Rssrai,

Hello. This is politics. You make it sound like only Hillary Clinton panders?

You don't think Edwards, Obama, Richardson, Romney, Giuliani, McCain, Thompson pander to groups of voters??????

Is it that bad.

by fightingLadyinblue on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:53:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos, (3.00 / 1)

There were two options: pander or sit back and let O'Reilly's smears stand. I'll take that pandering, thank you very much.

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 03:45:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos, (none / 0)

She didn't defend Kos.

Her communications manager did.

I think she doesn't want to offend Rupert by putting her own name on the condemnation.

by Bush Bites on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 07:25:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos, Goes Afte (none / 0)

very smart. it seemed odd to me that she even had a blog-outreach director in Daou considering the distance she kept from the blogs, but the campaign has been laying low, witholding actual goodwill outreach until just the right moment, first announcing her attendance at YK, then announcing Wilson's endorsement and now this. I agree, the tone is just right. even if your head is telling you it's a pander, you're still like "go Hillary!"

by Todd Beeton on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:14:23 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos, Goes Afte (none / 0)

As much as I am not buying into Hillary overall, I gotta agree with you that she is running a good campign that is like a well oiled machine. It was a well timed statement with the right amount of balance from a mainstream pundit perspective. It is a better campaign than the others. Her hiring of Peter Daou months ago was a good move. I noticed she gets a lot of love on Salon.

But I hope people dont start praising Hillary's merits as a leader just based on a campaign. Bush and the other republicans have ran better campaigns in the past, but it didnt mean they were the best person to lead the country.

by Pravin on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 02:54:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos, Goes Afte (none / 0)

Maybe you and Singer are.....

by aiko on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 03:01:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Speak for yourself and Jerome. (none / 0)

by jforshaw on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 03:37:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Speak for yourself and Jerome. (none / 0)

I'm neutral between Clinton and Obama, but when is Robert Gibbs gonna say something?

by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 05:06:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Speak for yourself and Jerome. (none / 0)

The clock is ticking. My hunch: The Obama campaign will stay silent on this issue.

by georgep on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 09:52:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos (3.00 / 1)

I wonder how many of the presidential candidates would be attending Yearly Kos if they werent running for president.

I'm so tired of this crap. This is exactly why bloggers and progressives are forever marginalized.

You claim that you're always ignored and how people arent progressive enough but then when they do something to progressive it's "pandering"

by world dictator on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:15:31 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos (none / 0)

I agree.

by spirowasright on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:20:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos (none / 0)

I agree too.

by lafinur on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:21:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yearly Kos ^= Blogs (none / 0)

I won't be attending Yearly Kos, because I have been dumped (repeatedly) at DK. The conflation of DK and the Blog movement as a whole is not a sensible idea, especially from the platform of mydd. I understand that, to some degree, "DK" is shorthand for "blogs", but that's a very bad idea. mydd and other progressive, non-DK blogs should ensure that the MSM does not FURTHER conflate DK and the blogosphere, especially since if that is done, DK may be discredited, and by doing so the entire blogosphere could be compromised.

We need to ensure that the blogosphere is MUCH MUCH more than DK and YK.

by dataguy on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:22:25 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos (none / 0)

I never thought I'd say this, but I'm proud to have her on my side today.

by IsThisOverYet on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:26:01 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos (none / 0)

So where are the condemnations from the Obama and Edwards Campaigns? Kucinich? Richardson? Dodd? Biden? Gravel?

Hmmmm... I hear a resounding lovely silence.

by DoIT on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:38:53 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos (none / 0)

Resounding silence? Try muffled laughter. If Clinton feels this way then she is being completely hypocritical in not attending the Fox debate and has no real idea why she's not. There is no disconnect between Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News. They are all one and the same, which they will gladly tell you. Their comeback to this will be - we embrace the views of our guests just as Democrats embrace the extremist views on DKos.

by Doug Tuesday on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:47:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos (none / 0)

I actually agree with you that Hillary and the rest should go to the Fox debate. They could all pull a Bill on Chris Wallace and pals, if need be.

by DoIT on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:57:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos (none / 0)

How do we win elections when we choose to destroy our winning candidates? I will say one thing about Republicans--they are loyal. For liberals nothing is good enough except a Ralph Nader who stands no chance of winning but a great chance of giving us more of the same. We have 2 parties and if any of you watched Congress last night you saw the Dems including Hillary try to pass an amendment which would have declared a timeline to end this war. I know which party is on the side of the people.

by changehorses08 on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:49:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos (none / 0)

That's a good point. Not only that, but Republicans don't go running around looking for sinsiter conspircies when groups noramally associated with Democrats start warming to their side.

by spirowasright on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 03:36:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos (none / 0)

So where are the condemnations from the Obama and Edwards Campaigns? Kucinich? Richardson? Dodd? Biden? Gravel?

Hmmmm... I hear a resounding lovely silence.

I guess the others aren't showing real leadership.

by world dictator on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 02:10:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos (none / 0)

That's real leadership, saying to Bill O'Reilly "It wouldn't be reasonable to attribute these views to you." It reads more to me like Clinton is being an apologist for him. Exactly why wouldn't it be reasonable to attribute the views of Ann Coulter to Bill O'Reilly?

by Doug Tuesday on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 02:13:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos (none / 0)

Try again. Your spin skill is lacking.

by world dictator on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 02:17:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos (none / 0)

Try answering the question. Why is it unreasonable to attribute the views of Ann Coulter to Bill O'Reilly?

by Doug Tuesday on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 02:20:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos (none / 0)

Sometimes it's more effective to stab someone in the ribs with a smile.

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 03:43:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos (none / 0)

That answer reminds me of the common wisdom among street toughs when I was growing up that if you were going to carry a knife, you better be prepared to use it. The Clinton statement is just showing the knife, but she's chicken to use it, and undoubtedly O'Reilly will grab it right out of her hands and stab all of us with it. The response will be so simple, so predictable it is beyond belief. It will be what a bunch of namby pambies. Guess what Mrs. Clinton, unlike you I am prepared to stand behind my words and the words of my guests. I make no bones about it. I agree with my guest David Horowitz, Democrats are apologists for terror. Do you agree with what is said on DKos - here he inserts a bunch of quotes putting down America and the troops - do you stand behind that? Of course you do, you just don't have the honesty to say that. Just like all the liberal democrats in America.

Don't show the knife if you're not prepared to use it.

by Doug Tuesday on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 03:59:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos (none / 0)

I don't think you get the subtlty or the point of her remark because you're too busy

1. Disliking Clinton and
2. Trying to attack Bill O'reilly

by world dictator on Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 11:18:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos (none / 0)

Dude, there is something that reasonable creatures indulge in to pass the time wisely, it's called logic. The problem with your point of view here is that it contains none.

Some people will twist anything any way they can to make good appear evil and likewise. Frankly I've had enough of the Neocon 1984 crowd.

by DoIT on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 05:16:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos (none / 0)

"It reads more to me like Clinton is being an apologist for him."

Uh, WHAT? Incredible spin. Nonsensical, but it definitely has chutzpah in a "no, the sky is really red" kind of way.

by georgep on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 09:34:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos, Goes Afte (none / 0)

I disagree with the Wolfson communique. I think it is absolutely reasonable to attribute every one of those views to Bill O'Reilly. If that's not the case, if Fox is not responsible for the slant of their guests and their news coverage, why is Clinton refusing to participate in a debate on the Fox News channel? I can't believe people think she's standing up to Bill Reilly with this comment. It's laughable. Those extreme views are HIS views.

by Doug Tuesday on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:41:49 PM EST

Taking on bloviating gasbag right wingnuts (none / 0)

"You've hosted Michael Savage, who has called MLK Jr. Day a "racket" designed to steal `white males' birthright.'

"You've hosted David Horowitz, who has called Democrats `apologists for terrorists.'

"You've hosted, Ann Coulter who said of the 9/11 widows: `I have never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much.'

That's how you do it. You take the Mighty Wurlitzer's words and actions and cram them right back down their throats - in front of God and everybody - then you smack 'em upside the head for good measure.

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:43:24 PM EST

Re: Taking on bloviating gasbag right wingnuts (none / 0)

I hope you are trying to be satirical. This has all the viciousness of a toothless dog with Alzheimer's. Of course everyone on Fox thinks Democrats are apologists of terrorists.

by Doug Tuesday on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:50:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking on bloviating gasbag right wingnuts (1.00 / 1)

Unfair. Hillary has teeth and smarts.

She just uses both inappropriately.

"ex nihilo nihil fit"

by Lassallean on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:57:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking on bloviating gasbag right wingnuts (none / 0)

Uh, you smack it down aggressively, not for the Faux News Channel and their mesmerized viewership, but for everyone else so that they don't repeat it verbatim - that breaks the chain of the Mighty Wurlizer and shows other media and media consumers that you're not afraid of those "mean people"

"We all need some therapy because somebody came along and said liberal means soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense. And we're going to tax you back to the stone age because people shouldn't have to work if they don't want to. And instead of saying 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun Leave it to Beaver trip back to the '50s'. We cowered in the corner and say, 'Please don't hurt me'. . . . Let's have two parties. . . ."

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:59:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking on bloviating gasbag right wingnuts (none / 0)

Is that what they said? I read an appeal to reason when talking to people who have gotten rich off being unreasonable. That's not talking smack. It's about as tough as "I know you are but what am I"?"

by Doug Tuesday on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 02:05:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking on bloviating gasbag right wingnuts (none / 0)

Ah grasshopper, the part addressed (bloviating Faux News Channel gasbag) is not the true target of the message. When you understand that, you will understand the strategery of campaign communications. Thus endeth the lesson.

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 02:12:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking on bloviating gasbag right wingnuts (none / 0)

Oh wise one, the reason Fox News is commercially successful is because their viewership is even more extreme than their shows. They get off on that type of comments.

by Doug Tuesday on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 02:18:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking on bloviating gasbag right wingnuts (none / 0)

They get off on that type of comments.

They're not the target of the rebuttal, everyone else is.

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 02:59:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking on bloviating gasbag right wingnuts (none / 0)

Now you're really reaching. You began by saying she was "taking on the bloviating gasbag right wingnuts" and now you say she's not talking to O'Reilly or Fox or their supporters but to the others, who are already against Fox and all that. And that is supposed to be taking them on? It sounds like something but it is really nothing, and that's pretty much the definition of pandering, isn't it?

by Doug Tuesday on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 03:18:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking on bloviating gasbag right wingnuts (none / 0)

If your third cousin's bother-in-law's mother's sister's husband's boss doesn't watch the Faux News Channel and a tree falls in the forest when no one is there, did it make a sound?

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 03:32:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking on bloviating gasbag right wingnuts (none / 0)

Of course it did, it made sound, and fury, signifying nothing.

by Doug Tuesday on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 03:41:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Taking on bloviating gasbag right wingnuts (none / 0)

You're referring to yourself as the one who "told the tale"? How noble. How MacBethian. How funny.

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 03:51:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillaryis44.com (none / 0)

Blogs may be democratic, but is this type of blog fair, especially when it serves as a front?

I was cited there awhile ago, not of my choosing, and when I wrote a comment to object and state my actual views, it was never posted.

Not much of a public square when only some views are allowed.

So what's up with that, Mr. Wolfson?

by citizen53 on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:44:57 PM EST

Madame Opportuniste (none / 0)

Hillary's for free speech. How progressive. Where do I pull the lever?

"ex nihilo nihil fit"

by Lassallean on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 01:53:20 PM EST

Why is Clinton boycotting the Fox debate? (none / 0)

If Clinton truly believes it not "reasonable" to attribute the extreme views expressed on Fox to the show's hosts, why would it be reasonable to attribute them to the station? Far from standing up on behalf of the blogosphere, this shows a complete lack of understanding what the debate boycott is about and makes it clear she is only doing it because Obama did it first. He understands there is no disconnect between saying the person "reporting" he went to a Madrassa, the host and producer of the show airing it, and the editorial policy of the station presenting the show. That's why he's not showing up to their debate. I truly wonder what Clinton's reason is?

by Doug Tuesday on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 02:01:59 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos (none / 0)

When has Hillary denied anything? She didn't deny that she voted for the war - she said she went with the information she had at hand. Hillary might not jump at the chance to be called a liberal (unlike a certain opportunist former senator I can think of), but I doubt she'd ever pull a Bush and stand before a crowd and say "I've never attended a YearlyKos convention."

by Conquest on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 02:55:55 PM EST

If netroots are stupid enough to fall for this, (none / 0)

then they will deserve every policy betrayal they'll get -- on the slim chance that Hillary does win the general election.

by jforshaw on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 03:47:36 PM EST

One step further (none / 0)

Clinton also has a petition on this:

TV and radio host Bill O'Reilly likes to take a few comments out of context and use them to smear broad groups of grassroots activists. But a look at the record shows he hosts plenty of guests on his own show who make comments that are way over the line.

Tell Bill O'Reilly to stop smearing grassroots progressives.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/action/ore illy/?sc=8

by domma on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 03:51:19 PM EST

Re: Why didn't she put it in her own name? (none / 0)

It seemed pretty weak to have it in the name of the communications manager.

Suspicious even.....was she afraid of offending Rupert?

by Bush Bites on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 07:22:35 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos (none / 0)

Yeah, why didn't she put it in her own name?

by Bush Bites on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 07:27:19 PM EST

Re: Clinton Campaign Defends Yearly Kos, Goes Afte (none / 0)

Although I can't help but applaud the statement (it's about time some Democrats stood up to that blowhard), Clinton just gives me the icks ... kinda like Bush.

by BeekerDynasty on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 08:13:45 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.