rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 6, 2009 4:47:09 GMT -7
yeah, but the beauty of types like Thomas is that she has always been a stick-in-the-mud when it came to deifying any president---except for Kennedy...she liked him
none of them are "Great" and she's far from the first to project the "I AM MEDIA, BOW TO ME" personae....many claim they "debate" but few really do
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Jul 6, 2009 6:05:51 GMT -7
Yes, and I loved it. Vintage Thomas...but Web ya have to remember, I've been one of her fans for years.....she's great at what she does, the beauty of her getting old is that she's go more license now to do it than when she used to catch such grief for doing it..... I agree with you on the license thing Rosa. You could see Robert Gibbs trying to act all above her yet he couldn't handle her and came off sounding like a nervous boob. Here's my question though, and I ask it out of genuine confusion. As a fan of hers why don't you believe what she says about the Obama administration? Given her longevity, wouldn't she be the one to know? Is it because she's saying it about Obama? Would you have discounted her if said it about Bush? And, do you believe any of them? ;D Tell me though please, that he's not being criticized for not being liberal enough.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 6, 2009 6:54:54 GMT -7
he's being criticized for lying by some, for backpeddling by others....the farther left you go, you'll find those who are criticizing him for not being left enough
as for the "journalists".....just because they might "know" this or that doesn't mean they won't spin it. I have a question for you: do you really want to sit there and tell me you believed everything, going back to when you were a kid....coming out of the American media?
you pick....before or after Brinkley, Donaldson, Cronkite....all of them....that what they were telling you was true? Look back at what we know, at what we've learned was kept from the general public...there were key media personnel who always knew Kennedy was a philanderer....and yet they never reported it
I read a lot of different perspectives for precisely that reason...they are all different perspectives with a side to sell and yes, I will believe this or that from one side or the other, but no, I don't find any one source to be "most credible", tho there are some that are better at fact finding
not even one of my faves: Matt Taibbi....I read a bunch of different sources and make up my own mind
I don't believe Thomas because what she was trying to sell wasn't true. Nixon did his best to control the media and her comparison was exaggerated, I would imagine, influenced by her frustration. The primary reason I've been such a fan of hers was rarely based on the fact that she wouldn't try to spin it, Web.....I just have liked the way she never did the "Charley and Diane" thing (one) and the fact that she was tenacious about getting past the b/s from administration personnel.
But in the end, she, like all the others, spins.....
please don't get me started on Bush. As far as I am concerned, Obama is looking more and more like him--just as dishonest and conniving and manipulative with the public trust
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Jul 6, 2009 12:14:37 GMT -7
Sheeeeeit, you know me. I believe very little of what the press says. Sean Hannity said that 2008 was the year journalism died. I think the press loves Obama and he gets a pass where Bush wouldn't. Which is why, when a member of that same press says something contrary to Obama's admin, I take notice.
I continue to be confused by your position. What are you not believing that she said? That the Obama adminstation wants to control the press? Do you really think he's above that? That he's attempting more control than the Nixon administration? Again, Obama's above that?
I'll add this. If Nixon really did control the press, he did a God-awful job.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 7, 2009 13:03:19 GMT -7
Shows you how little Hannity knows....that was a dumb remark; the corporates took over journalism ages ago...where the heck was he? Sucking on a lollipop back in kindergarten?
The current admin isn't doing anything any different, come on Web! If there are any in the media who were gullible enough to believe Obama when he said he'd be different, more candid, more "open" with the citizens of this country, then they can join the ranks with the rest of us who fell for the cock and bull
and Nixon's people did a great job...which is one of the reasons why Watergate shocked everyone--think about the lengths to which he went and we didn't know it until it broke
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Jul 7, 2009 21:58:39 GMT -7
I think Hannity meant that the 2008 election was the election that the press gave up even the pretense of impartiality (thin as it was already). It's kinda like pro-wrestling. For the longest time, pro-wrestling proponents claimed it was real competition but finally it had to give up the pretense.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 8, 2009 5:05:41 GMT -7
then he, Hannity of all people, should have been more direct....there hasn't been much "responsible", "real" journalism in ....well, I guess it depends on whom you ask
and Hannity speaks to his own followers, so where's the complaint? I've seen his and like-minded shows before....he panders to the ratings as much as the others do
tell you what Web, it's gotten so bad that in a more recent issue of Newsweek, Stephen Colbert was allowed to "edit" the issue, and he appeared to have some fun and a little license with the issue....all throughout that issue, his jokes run amok
in a subsequent issue, a writer complained that he couldn't tell the difference between Colbert's jokes and the "real" content; they printed up several other complaints, but this letter writer got my attention because this is what he was referencing....by way of addressing his difficulty in making distinctions between the "news" and the "joking" after reading an article by Sharon Begley:
After Sharon Begley's article: "From Bench to Bedside" which addressed the hindrances research experiences when it isn't considered "marketable" in either "credibility" or monetary terms.....
Colbert said: "Begley is Newsweek's Science editor. She told me privately that she's smarter than everybody else in the office. That should make for an awkward company picnic!" -S.C.
It's one thing for me to misunderstand you quoting someone on TV and another altogether for a reader out there to say he couldn't tell this was a joke, especially after he read the article itself, and I would assume the editorial note in front which told readers that Colbert was the week's editor.
We have "dumbed down" our expectations every bit as much as we've allowed corporate influences to dumb down what we see and read by way of news. Which is precisely why I read what I can when I can from different sources
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 8, 2009 5:09:02 GMT -7
by the way, the Begley article is an okay one when considered in context with the discussion on health care so when I get a chance, I'll post it ... she makes some good points, though again, it's hardly something we shouldn't have long since figured out on our own
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Jul 11, 2009 15:22:59 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Jul 12, 2009 6:23:38 GMT -7
Thanks Web. The reality is this is the kind of analysis that at best will end up a History Channel story 10 years from now. What the guy on the street will remember will be something like - "Remember when that old guy chose the Bimbo from Alaska as a VP - what was her name - you know the idiot who could see Russia from her porch"
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 12, 2009 11:34:06 GMT -7
I wonder what someone with time could turn up on the opposition to women who seek political office, or those women who were heavily influential in political arenas
as to the implicit notion that the media was ever objective? Yeah. Right.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 12, 2009 19:16:47 GMT -7
Web, your post reminded me of this blog entry from Tom Watson:
January 07, 2008 The Sexist Media Mugging of Hillary Clinton What kind of progressive American leader would stand silent, supporting with the cold reserve of ambition the disgracefully sexist, blatantly anti-feminist attack on a well-respected woman of the same party, a political foe perhaps, but a national Democratic leader?
Barack Obama - so far.
Make no mistake, Obama's breakthrough says something wonderful about the state of racial politics in our nation - or perhaps the lack of racial politics - and the involvement of young people in politics. But his silence in the case of the cynical media lynching of Hillary Clinton by a national press corps obsessed with her gender is telling. And unless Barack Obama speaks out, his campaign's chilling acceptance of the gender bias stirred by our national media will also remind many of Ronald Reagan's acceptance of the race-baiting southern strategy - because if Obama accepts the presidency, at least in part, because of abject sexism, a brutal gender attack on a female rival - the most famous female Democrat in history - he will set feminism in our country back a generation.
There is no hope for John Edwards, of course. His cruel, stony reaction to the news that Senator Clinton got a little emotional during a New Hampshire diner visit was a window on the man's soul, a window into an empty room.
But Obama claims a mightier throne, one forged in liberal ideals of justice and equality and hope. He is the secular messiah of the Democratic Party, ordained by Oprah Winfrey as the chosen one and given to preaching about transcending petty politics. Yet there he was at the New Hampshire debate, throwing a scornful "compliment" at his rival when asked about Senator Clinton's "likability," one of the many sexist code words deployed against her in this race. "She's likable enough," he smirked, looking downward.
I think every woman reading this post knows exactly how Hillary Clinton felt in that moment.
Obama has benefited mightily from sexism in this campaign, and has remained silent. And that sexism is starting to be noticed, and commented on - even in places you don't expect it. John Cole, to say the least, is no Hillary Clinton fan but the gender-based attacks have gotten to him:
Quite frankly, I hate to say this, but I think what we are actually seeing is a double-standard here, and the feminists may be right. This is all about Hillary being a woman. John Edwards has been 150 times as angry the whole campaign, and has built his entire campaign around it. Howard Dean was angry, and people lapped it up. Here, Hillary isn’t really angry, just matter-of-fact and frustrated, and people are giving her crap.
I don’t want Hillary as President, but it sure looks to me like she isn’t getting a fair shake and is being subjected to a double standard. It’s bullshit.
Then there was Clinton's flash of anger in the same debate as the two men teamed up to bash her - she showed her anger, something male candidates (think McCain) do every debate, and was promptly accused of having a "meltdown." More people are beginning the see this media lynching as a negative story for Democrats of truly historic; here's Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly:
Am I feeling bitter? You bet. Not because Hillary Clinton seems more likely than not to lose — I can live with that pretty easily — but because of how she's likely to lose. Because the press doesn't like her. Because any time a woman raises her voice half a decibel she instantly becomes shrill.
Nor is it all men, on the attack, sadly. At TalkLeft, blogger Jeralyn shares an email from a reader:
I have a question that I don't see anyone talking about right now and that is the disturbing behavior I see from women toward Hillary Clinton.
I belong to other on-line forums -- Democratic forums -- and I see women referring to Hillary as "bitchy", "catty", "shrill", "ugly" and some too bad to mention. Most of these come from women supporting Obama. The idol worship and willingness to throw their gender under the bus in order to elect Obama is disturbing.
My question is, what happens when the campaign is over and women realize that they have set themselves back ....Will they be surprised?
It's ugly, the MoDo Syndrome - not something lefties believe exists on our side. But it's there. Taylor Marsh is right - the reaction to a little emotion, a little fire from the leading woman in American political history may be too much. Maybe we're not ready for a female president.
Hillary quite simply let them have it. Women everywhere know how she feels. There isn't one person in business or any level of professional life, even college, who hasn't had it happen to them. But having a woman show it in public? It's an emotional cleavage moment inspired by a flash in time when weaker men joined together to take their more formidable female adversary down through a round robin rough up.
You could see it in the fire and flash in her eyes.
This is a defining moment in American history. To see if we can grow up from "witch" to "strength," while appreciating that an infuriated woman standing up for herself and her record is a sign of real heart, passion of conviction and determination. It all depends if America likes the look of feminine power when it's released through a flash of fire in a potential commander in chief's eye.
Has America grown out of their June Clever syndrome, finally ready for our Golda Meir moment? We don't know the answer to this question yet. But from the signs I'm seeing today, I wouldn't take the bet.
Me either. At the start of the campaign, I didn't think the national media could possibly be successful in an anti-woman campaign against a Democrat. I thought surely that the left wouldn't allow it, that the rest of the Democratic field - avowed feminists all - would object, and object loudly. I may be proved wrong. And Barack Obama is silent.
UPDATE: Jane Hamsher's all over it: feel the misogyny. And Matt Stoller fries "the cynical, nasty, and misogynistic press corps."
UPDATE II: Well, the headline's not popular and perhaps I should have proceeded more carefully with my own language in a post about loaded language. But I didn't. So I'll take the lumps. My main argument stands, though Mannion disagrees. Over at Shakeville, however, Liss is with me: "When a female public figure is demonized with sexist swill, and such tactics go unchecked, we collectively give our tacit assent to sexism being wielded against any woman in any situation." And, no Gloria Steinem did not time her Times Op-ed to coincide with this blog or with Senator Clinton's "shocking" show of emotion yesterday, but it's an elegant essay on the sad hit feminism is taking in this race.
UPDATE III: Well, the first candidate to speak kindly of Senator Clinton during this firestorm has made his views clear. Yep, it's Mike Huckabee.
FINAL UPDATE: I have closed the comments on this post for fairly obvious reasons. And I'm taking the rare step of changing the headline. My original headline was, in retrospect, inflammatory and I regret the use of the word "lynching." Its use had two inherent problems: poor writing (the word did not accurately describe what I intended it to) and an unfortunate tendency to discount its historic - and literal - meaning in American history. I'm taking this action because this post continues to draw significant traffic from search engines, and I'd like to correct my error in judgment, however tardy it may be. That said, my overall argument stands uncorrected.
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Jul 12, 2009 22:37:02 GMT -7
Thanks Web. The reality is this is the kind of analysis that at best will end up a History Channel story 10 years from now. What the guy on the street will remember will be something like - "Remember when that old guy chose the Bimbo from Alaska as a VP - what was her name - you know the idiot who could see Russia from her porch" It's already that way, Snil. I'm constantly having to correct folks that believe that Palin really said that. For the record, that particular SNL skit, I thought, was hilarious, I just didn't realize at the time that some folks that watched it must have actually thought they were watching the news.
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Jul 12, 2009 22:49:21 GMT -7
Rosa, that blog you posted was really good too. I don't discount his analysis at all, yet I think Hillary's biggest problem with her campaign was not so much that she's a woman, but that she ran against the media's chosen one.
It's like John McCain. He's the press' favorite Republican as long as he's being compared to truly conservative Republicans. Put him up against media darling Obama, and John McCain gets cast as a fanged creature with blood dripping out his mouth (literally. I saw the photos).
By the way, when asked about the coverage Hillary got from the press, she said Fox was very fair to her. Surprised?
Another thing that strikes me is that last bit in there about how he changed the title of the entry and removed the word "lynch". Our own mayor got some heat himself for jokingly mentioning a lynching.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Jul 13, 2009 6:35:49 GMT -7
Remember what they did to McCain when he ran against Bush, Web? What was it they said about his daughter? What about all the other stuff they said about him then? Hillary is not someone I happen to like but if it's one thing she has proven, it is that she rolls with it. She understood that it comes with the territory, and at times she (or her people) complained, protested the false characterizations, and at other times she just let it roll off. The negative press, the lies and exaggerations are not "right", but they come with the territory, and she, McCain and Obama each demonstrated that they handle, manipulate and avoid the negativity on their own terms--very much like politicians do. One of the things that Snil said to me early on that caught my attention was that he didn't agree with the way the rumor rmongering targeted Obama's ethnicity or his religious backgrounds. He disagreed with the attempts to cast Obama as having ties to terrorist groups and he disagreed with the negative connotations that people used when they talked about the Muslim religion. Lots of lies and exaggerations were first shown in the press. You may not agree with it, but I'm going to say it: the article you posted is a good one, but it is given to its own slant as well. So is the one I posted. They all are. And frankly, during the campaign last year, one of the things I think both Palin and Biden had in common was their propensity for speaking gobbledy-gook whenever they opened up their mouths. There were times when I genuinely felt that they didn't make any sense, wouldn't answer questions directly and appeared downright stupid, inattentive and thoughtless. And I don't know anyone who had it in for Palin beause she was attractive. Sorry. I do know lots of people who made fun of the number of children she had and more still who wondered why she wasn't home raising them. As for the ways in which people have come out to defend the mayor here for using the term "lynching" ....I can see that both ways. But having heard from other people that he has made racist and sexist comments before, neither really surprises me much. That Rev. Johnnie Washington defended his character while hoding him to task for having done so? No surprise there either. I've met her. Those double standards are quite something to see up close. I have white friends who have adopted minority kids, and in a couple of cases, minority activists, (some affiliated with Washington) people who seemed to place politics before childrens' welfare came out against this practice, calling it "ethnic cleansing" and "racist", without bothering to learn a thing about the individuals they were characterizing this way. In each and every case I'm referring to, those particular kids have more ethnic/racial "pride" in their heritage than most of their peers. Most times, it seems more about what you're willing to speak up for when there are reporters running amok.
|
|