leave it to Bill Kristol in New York Tmes- a challenge to TPM
this did not shock me..so I peruse the New York Times and, again, an absence of any stories about Clinton, with one column breathlessly describing how Obama is retooling hid message to reflect real or perceived problems with blue collar or Catholic or whatever voters....alas, I think to myself, another blank insofar as Clinton, but, lo, up in the corner, in smaller print a praising column by Bill Kristol.
hmmmm...I mused, that is sure going to get Hillary some traction with the effete liberals who have all been calling for her public execution, at dawn and televised around the world, a laudatory column by a neo-con architect of the war in Iraq.
wow...but then I read the following comment in Kristol's piece, which, interestingly enough, I found nowhere on these respected media sources, nor, after perusing TPM...if you allow my poor non-computer person to cut and paste the following, which you can read in the Times site, of course:
Hillary has achieved this despite much disparagement of her candidacy by liberal commentators, and in the face of the media’s crush on Obama. Even those who started out being well disposed to Clinton have moved toward Obama, if only out of concern that the prolonged race is damaging Democratic prospects in the fall.
Obama understands his advantage with the media, as he perhaps inadvertently demonstrated over the weekend on “Fox News Sunday.” In the course of dismissing much pundit commentary for typically overreacting to events, good or bad, Obama explained, “Well, look, after you lose, then everybody writes these anguished columns about, why did you lose?”
Obama chose a nice word: “anguished.” You’re only anguished by an Obama defeat if you’re rooting for an Obama victory. Obama was tacitly acknowledging that much of the liberal media has been hoping he’d win. Now, they’re rooting for him to close the deal
The title of the Kristol piece is "Hillary gets no respect".
Again, I typically would not be heartened by the comments of Bill Kristol, but do find it remarkable he seized on comments by Obama clearly showing he knows the media is in the tank for him.
I guess that is why he got so pissed off at George S & C Gibson from ABC, I mean, did they forget that they were supposed to be anquished.
Anquished, it is a word that fits well the circumstance of liberal politics now, you fiery Obama supporters of TPM...and, as well for people like me, anquished that my voice is ridiculed and mocked, run off, ignored, how do you like them apples son?
Many of us do not like having our views demeaned, we like being ignored even less, so as you go about your daily tasks of being anquished over any and every thing that does not fit into your square holes, some of round objects, otherwise indistinquishable from you in make up, composition, whatever, but you want to ignore us.
yes, Hillary has become a marvellous candidate, Obama has faded and is fading as we speak, but dare not let us admit anything negative, do not allow it, do not let it into your heads, cause, I sypathize with your disability...your anquish over not getting what you want when you want it.
grow up liberal weenies...there are some of us out here who are tough as nails, ready to rumba and your biased slip is showing maam
First of all, unless you're using an odd font, the word is "anguish," not "anquish." Moving on from there, here is the fallacy of what Kristol says - he ignores pesky little facts, such as the full quote.
"Well, look. After you lose, then everybody writes these anguished columns about why did you lose. After Iowa, everybody was saying Obama's transforming folks because he's bringing in all these voters who we never expected would vote for a black guy.
This is the nature of politics. The fact of the matter is that, you know, we have done well among every group because people are less interested in dividing the country along racial lines or regional lines. They're really focused on how are we going to solve these big problems right now."
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352785,00.html)
In other words, he's using anguished editorials about Clinton as an example. It goes both ways. He was talking about a general problem in the media, and if Kristol (and you) had used Obama's full quote, you'd see that.
April 28, 2008 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you not understand how you're begging to have your "views" demeaned?
Furthermore, even you seem to be using the word "liberal" as if it were a bad thing. Four legs good, two legs better, indeed.
April 28, 2008 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, to summarize:
1. The media likes Obama.
2. Apparently that is somehow a bigger advantage then being tied to 8 years of a popular president and all his advisors, support, and money.
3. Obama fans are gay losers.
It was like getting all the empty bullshit of a Maureen Dowd article (with bonus homophobia) without any of that fancy writing.
"Liberal weenie?" Go back to Redstate.
April 28, 2008 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where is the "challenge" in this rambling, illiterate screed? Is it the "grow up liberal weenies" part, which is followed by the boastful claim that the author counts him/herself among some "tough as nails" group? Does the author exhort us "liberal weenies" to join the "rumba"? TPM to emulate Kristol? What?
As for the author's self-styled "tough as nails" status, it might be more believable had he/she not whinged the following just a few paragraphs prior: "...as well for people like me, anquished [sic] that my voice is ridiculed and mocked, run off, ignored, how do you like them apples son?"
Boo-freaking-hoo. If you're looking for pundits to affirm your view of the race and heap praise on your chosen candidate, they're easy enough to find. You've already noticed an ally in Kristol. It seems that Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough are huge Hillary fans as well. Enjoy that top-quality commentary!
April 28, 2008 7:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oof! Where oh where is the "Recommend this" for replies?
April 28, 2008 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention those bastions of reason known as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter!
April 28, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Neocons love Neocons.
April 28, 2008 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
While not "anquished," I'm mildly "anquered" by your point that you have been ridiculed, run off, and--oh, and mocked. As opposed to calling people liberal weenies and asking how they like them apples?
I do not claim to "sypathize" with your situation, except in the odd way you use the term, meaning apparently to somehow gloat and complain at the same time.
FWIW, the press, in struggling to appear less biased against Clinton, has overcompensated in bias against Obama. Obama doesn't complain (unlike Hillary "you always ask me the first question" Clinton), but that doesn't mean his followers cannot.
Oh, and I'm proud to be a liberal. The world needs more liberals.
Obama 08
April 28, 2008 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
i am a liberal too, sorry, just tired of the faltering obama campaign being puffed up daily by anguished media elites and o'cultists.
April 28, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
As Clevomon points out, Obama was talking about the nature of politics and punditry in general. The anguished commentary about Clinton persisted through and after Super Tuesday. And as with much of the media, Kristol forgets that the media was apoplectic about McCain's seeming inability to unite his party and put Huckabee out of the race. The media lives on anguish; it is their contribution to the campaign narrative.
And Cherry, I have to disagree with your description of the Times' piece on the retooling Obama as positive. The whole story was framed as Obama trying to make up for a perceived deficiency rather than Obama extending his talents, adapting to a new situation, showing his versatility as a campaigner. The piece on Hillary was much more admiring as seems to be the case with everythign from the Times' these days.
April 28, 2008 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting that Obama has realized that he needs to "retool" his message. His ardent admirers here at TPM don't see anything wrong with it, of course. They go bug nuts if you suggest it's Obama's message that is turning lower income white voters and old folks off.
However, I doubt Obama himself can see which part of his message is turning people off. At any rate, it's too late to fix it for Indiana. He'll have to spend his way to victory there. If he does, maybe he can fix his message before November.
April 28, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
What makes no sense to me is that you're operating on the assumption that the people are voting for Clinton are doing so because they're turned off by Obama.
By the way Billy, I've been meaning to ask you this. I'm sure it's been answered before, but are you going to vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is in the fall?
April 28, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who still thinks the press has a "crush" on Obama must not have read a paper or watched the news for the last couple of months. Any "pass" he may have gotten was revoked when the Rev. Wright stories began to surface. The miracle is that he's continued to do as well as he has considering the negative press he's gotten.
April 28, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Clinton media-bias argument is such a red herring, particularly since some of the headlines around HRC's campaign behavior and her outright lies has been so forgiving. Let's get real. In most any other country if a politician were caught outright lying, as she so embarrasingly did about her Bosnian adventure, they would have resigned in shame. Not Hillary. She has her "you-go-girl" coalition of women and working class Americans behind her saying who cares if she exaggerates and lies...she says she'll roll up her sleeves and work on our behalf!
Oh. Right. She'll tell the truth from now on?
The only truth in her campaign story is that she will never give up. But the other red herring is that she is staying in the race for reasons OTHER than her pure narcissistic interest and her belief that the presidency is owed to her.
I often think back to Katie Couric's interview of Hillary in early December 2007, before the Iowa shit-storm changed the political landscape. Looking back it reminds me of the old saying that "pride cometh before the fall..."
Hillary sat there, the inevitable nominee, and when Katie asked her whether she had considered the thought that she could lose the election Hillary said, with her all-knowing smile, "Well no Katie. I will be the nominee."
Well guess what. She can't fathom the idea that she won't be the nominee, even though she's run a terrible campaign, made poor fiscal and staff decisions throughout it, and she wants the American people to not only believe her after peddling falsehoods but to overlook how poorly she has managed the one true managerial challenge she has had responsibility for.
The media is being called out for bias even though they do not underscore these things, and continue to argue that the contest is somehow even. It's not. Obama is ahead and is so by an insurmountable margin and with a coalition that will not turn out for Hillary in November. The media breathes life into her campaign by just continuing her narcissistic delusion that she is still in this race and by not calling for her to look at the reality of her candidacy. Point blank.
The media and the superdelegates are like the ward personnel in a psychiatric ward who don't want to upset the patient by confronting the patient with reality. Who is going to be the Nurse Ratchet?
The only other truth is that Hillary will not let Obama have the nomintion without completely destroying his chances of winning against McCain. She is hell-bent on that. She believes that she can come back after a term of McCain and beat him with an "I told you so" campaign. Boy, that is really good for all of us over the next four years, isn't it? She's really putting AMERICA's interests before her own, isn't she
Go ahead and vote for her. She is a monster.
April 28, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink