You can't have it both ways, Ed Schultz

I read with great interest that Ed Schultz is spitting mad that Sen. Hillary Clinton's people "treat us like dirt". Says Schultz, who today met with Sen. Barack Obama, "We are constantly disregarded, told things that aren't true, and given speculation an interview might happen someday. Quite frankly, I'm sick of it. This morning I watched Hillary Clinton tell CNN she is accessible. What? To the TV cameras yes, to the base of loyal listeners on progressive talk radio, absolutely not!"

Let me be the first, Ed, to tell you that you can't have it both ways. Further, that what goes around, comes around. Remember the 2006 election, particularly the race for U.S. Senate in Connecticut? Then, you made quite a stink about the blogosphere and its support of Ned Lamont. You even accused the netroots of backing Lamont versus Joe Lieberman as a result of the 2004 election. That's right. Revenge.

"This is all about Iowa and Howard Dean and how Joe Lieberman really, relentlessly went after Dean and the bloggers have never forgotten it," Schultz said last July, later adding, "He was aggressive. He went after Dean on every position. And the blogosphere obviously mounted the attack and the support of Howard Dean, obviously because he's a grassroots guy and he represents what he claims to be the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. ... But I think there's a little angst in all of those on the far left in dealing with the blogs and I believe it has morphed into something even bigger than that, to the point where 'It's all about Lieberman and we're going to prove it and we're going to do a get-back.' This seems to me to be a 100 percent get-back."

I asked then how you could be so misguided on the issue. "How could someone like Schultz," I wrote, "who clearly has his finger on the pulse of many Americans, show such a tin ear for why many - including the blogosphere - oppose Lieberman." It had nothing to do with 2004, Ed. It had everything to do with sending an actual Democrat to the Senate, not a Bush-supporting, dishonest sham of an elected official. Even before the broadcast in question, you had questioned the netroots' motives. All the while, with regard to the Lamont/Lieberman race, you chose to cozy up to a phony centrism that could more accurately be described as "being a closet Republican".

But now you're fed up with Clinton, another centrist? Though nowhere near Lieberman in terms of her rhetoric, Clinton is by no means cut from the same cloth as a John Edwards or, to be sure, Dennis Kucinich. Problem is, Ed, you can't claim to speak for progressive America and be this upset that Clinton isn't yet keen on speaking to your listeners. Just like you can't claim to speak for progressive America and so blatantly support a hack like Lieberman. Make no mistake, I think it would be sound advice to counsel Clinton to appear on your show. But don't feign outrage when your pandering to centrism comes back to bite you.

In a related twist, it should anger you even more, Ed, to know that while she's not appearing on your show, Clinton is planning on speaking directly to the people this week (starting tonight) in a series of live Webcasts. Imagine that, a presidential candidate making a point to speak to we extremists before she appears where America comes to talk. Welcome to people-powered Democracy, Ed.

Tags: Ed Schultz, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont, people-powered politics (all tags)



heard that on the radio too yesterday

Ed does way too much apologizing for  timid dems..

don't know if it's to keep the sponsors of his shows or what.

a caller when he had Edwards on thanked Edwards for having the moxy to go after McCain by name and said he was tired-of republican lite.. however, Schultz ended up defending the timid dems and saying Edwards had more freedom to "whip ass" than the others.

by TarHeel 2007-01-23 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: You can't have it both ways, Ed Schultz

Maybe you should listen to Ed Schultz.  He is centerist on many issues.

No one on radio from the left is doing it better in the ratings.

Him and Randi Rhodes that is

by rapallos 2007-01-23 12:12PM | 0 recs
Which ways does Schultz want it?

Schultz is calling out Senator Clinton for poor treatment, lack of respect and lack of access, Mr Hughes. Are you disputing what he is saying about the Senator's campaign and how they are treating progressive radio? He's venting, but is anything he's saying factually innaccurate? His criticism of the Senator is based on her behavior, not based on her politics.

You are calling him a hypocrite based on his detente with Lieberman. You think his different treatment of Lieberman makes him inconsistent because both Clinton's and Lieberman's politics are 'centrist'. But, Lieberman did not treat Schultz in the way he's claiming Clinton did. He gave him access and respect. Lieberman's behavior toward Schultz was different than Clinton's.

Schultz's position on this is clear and consistent. He wants respect and access, or failing that, honesty. He's using his show to ask for it.

The relative centrism of Clinton's and Lieberman's politics has nothing to do with Schultz's complaints.

by thief 2007-01-23 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: You can't have it both ways, Ed Schultz

Ed Shultz's point still stands. How does Hillary's shunning liberal radio help her? Why doesn't she look at how Murtha and Edwards rehabiitated themselves despite their initial missteps on Iraq?

But I did not know Ed said that about Lamont's supporters. THat is pretty disappointing.

by Pravin 2007-01-23 08:12PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads