MPD Press Cries Crocodile Tears Over “Poor” Hillary Clinton

Overnight, the press has fallen in love with Hillary Clinton, the loser in the Democratic Primary.

Since armchair psychiatric diagnosis is all the rage nowadays, I am going to whip out the old DSM IV and look up MPD or Multiple Personality Disorder, which is now dissociative identity disorder. That might explain why the story that the MSM has been telling for months has changed overnight.Or maybe, we all chased a rabbit down the same hole Tuesday night (only we forgot) and this is another world, an opposite land, where the press loves Hillary so much that they can not bear to see her criticized.Then again, the simplest solution is usually the correct one. The corporate media has supported the GOP in the last two presidential elections. Chances are, they are doing it again.



Alarmed that the Democrats might rally around Barack Obama and deprive Rush Limbaugh and Morning Joe of their dreams of a Brokered Convention in Chaos, the nation’s corporate media has abruptly changed it’s tune. Hillary bashing has become Hillary championing—literally overnight.

From the Washington Post we get “Belittled Woman”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051504058.html?hpid=topnews


Pardon my skepticism at this sudden outpouring of feminist solidarity, but last fall the Washington Post started a MSM trend by writing about Clinton’s cleavage.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902668.html


From the Seattle Times we get “Obama Supporters Unwise to Attack Hillary”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004411946_harrop14.html


(I am sorry but I must interject something at this point. This last anecdotal evidence is bullshit. Maybe someone gave someone the finger somewhere, but how do we know that it was not Republican Hillary-bashers? Or a totally made up story from the GOP? And maybe it was because of the way that person was driving and not because of a sticker.)

Now, look at the splitter campaign narrative that the Seattle Times was pushing earlier this year, at the same time that all the other corporate media types were doing it: “Sorry, Hillary, You’ve crossed the line”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004280786_plunkhaun14.html
This is one of those form letter editorials that we saw so often this spring. Ambitious writers could get their name in print by penning something that included some variation of “Sen. Clinton, I can no longer count myself in your ranks” followed by the charge because I have suddenly discovered that you wear a white hooded robe and burn crosses on people’s yards or the equivalent. It had to be true. Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan kept saying it.

Speaking of Pat Buchanan, I have already written about his before and after articles elsewhere, so I will just link them here. First from this week:
http://www.creators.com/opinion/pat-buchanan/race-cards-and-speech-codes.html
Bill Clinton’s “fairy tale” remark was completely innocent and Black and liberal journalists conspired to misrepresent it to paint the Clintons as racists.
Then from January
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/ghettoizing_barack.html
Bill Clinton’s “fairy tale” remark was racially charged and designed to alienate Obama from white voters

And of course, we all saw how the debates changed tone abruptly in Pennsylvania, as the corporate media zeroed in on the presumptive winner, Barack Obama. For the very first time, a TV news personality hinted on air that the Obama camp had actually distributed anti-Clinton material to the press (gasp!). Up until then, the American public had heard the MSM rant about Clinton’s predilection for killing infants in their cradles 24-7 for months.

If I thought that the press had actually developed a conscience and felt sorry for what they had done to Hillary Clinton, I would say “Too little, too late, ass wipes.” However, I recognize what is going on here. I have been predicting this for months in my journals. This is the next inevitable phase in the scripted divide and conquer media assault on the Democratic Primary. Now the Obama camp and its supporters get blamed for burning the witch Hillary Clinton at the stake---in a virtual sense—even though Chris Matthews was the head witch hunter (he has actually called her a witch on TV) and his helpers were member of the press. They hope to anger Clinton supporters. But even more than that, the goal is to scare Independents and Republicans into believing that Obama is dirty and divisive and they would be much safer with a straight talker .

If someone has a big can of shut-the-fuck-up now would be a good time to open it on the corporate media. Sigh. Barring that, the next best thing is to demonstrate how unified we are, in order to prove that the media whores are FOS.

Her canonization is almost assuredly guaranteed. She can now serve as VP and/or SCOTUS. (The latter would be 'til a ripe old age, of course.)

Too bad for the country tho..... we could have had 16 years of rule by experienced and dedicated Democrats.

Alas... now we will be lucky to achieve four. Four years?

Maybe only four`states... in the GE....

:cry:

ouch.

in glee.... now that they have installed Mr. Obama as our candidate.

They will immediately point out that the stupid Dems should have known Hillary was a stronger candidate against McCain, as soon as Hillary concedes.

Then they'll spend months telling us why.

In a McCain/Clinton race... the primary issue would be the economy. The Clintons are worlds and away better at economic issues than McCain is.

In a McCain/Obama match up the leading issue is foreign policy. They are already at it.... spinning the "appeaser" meme for the American public.

Democrats do not win on foreign policy. They win on the economy. And... Mr. Obama has no more experience in this area than Mr. McCain does. In fact, he has less.

Obama is every bit as stupid on economics as McCain. They're both free traders, and neither one has any clue about economics, or the economy.

Hillary is head and shoulders above either one of them, when it comes to the economy.

based on the strengths of their candidate.

Noone can reasonably argue that Mr. Obama is better qualified to make foreign policy decisions than Mr. McCain. The American public will not buy that. McCain is a war hero with years of service on the foreign relations committee.

WE are screwed.

...I think you have something there.

And you know she would have done nothing to help Obama succeed her.

Tho based on some history, one would wonder if this will even be your issue anymore sixteen years from now so why do you care?

..will Obama supporters be able to turn off the hate, or will it just be focused elsewhere. Hate is regressive and primitive and has no place in the Democratic party.

Hate is regressive and primitive and has no place in the Democratic party. I doubt it.

The hatred on DU and in the blogcult for President Clinton and Hillary has boggled my mind.

This is DEMOCRATIC underground, not REPUBLICAN-LITE underground. When it campaigns like a republican and talks (OBLITERATE IRAN!) like a republican.....

Play the victim if you must. It's all you have left, I suppose.

pouring freely from the followers of Obama back then.

don't be naive enough to suggest Obama supporters are only the bad guys and Clinton supporters are only the poor widdle victims. I supported and defended the Clintons from 1992 until recently, when they began to act un-Democrat.

And if you do not know that... you are not a Democrat.

Further, she is trying to protect your man from being taken down by his achille's heel. Which any idiot can see is a statement he said about meeting with "terrorists."

If she is selected to be VP, her "obliterate Iran" statement will help balance Obama's naive "meet with Ahmadinajad" statement. Which is already not playing well for the GE. Hillary knows this, and being the party loyalist that she is... she will do what's in her power to save us in November.

if you can't see that, you are not a Democrat. "Our man" doesn't NEED Hillary's protection. He's kicking her ass quite handily. Threatening to OBLITERATE another country is a Republican tactic, meant to play to them, not Democrats. If you can't see that, you are not a Democrat. By all means, let's not talk to our adversaries, let's not try to find peaceful solutions FIRST. Let's just bomb the fuck out of everyone we don't like or agree with. It's worked out so well for us for the last 8 years, hasn't it?

"Which is already not playing well for the GE." Got proof of that? Link to a poll? And NOT one from hillaryclintonforum or its' ilk.

Well back in the old days, he was this Missouri farmer, just a simple guy who spent much of his time farming (which he did not much enjoy) and working for his fellow man.

However on March 12, 1947 he said something that sounded an awful lot like going to war for an ally:

This is no more than a frank recognition that totalitarian regimes imposed upon free peoples, by direct or indirect aggression, undermine the foundations of international peace, and hence the security of the United States.

...
But that did not result in war. However...on 6/27/1950, Truman did order the US military to respond to an invasion of an ally by a perceived enemy of the UN and US.

Now if you hate Harry S. Truman, fine, go right ahead (he had issues as they say) but the junior Senator of New York was basically saying a continuation of US policy since WWII-the last time we attempted to stay out of a war.

And, more than anything... this is what is driving the wedge in the party. A Democrat simply should not bash a former Democratic president. Period. It is counterproductive.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6015555&mesg_id=6015597

Sorry but why the hell would you even insinuate such a thing?!

Although you transposed the correct name. I know you meant Hillary supporters. No worries, we understood you.

which is every bit as bad. The media responded to the words, fairy tale, and to the question on the IWR vote, but the deeper more potent piece of the lie was a copy of what Rove and the Republicans did to Kerry in 2004. That dealt with what Kerry in 2004 and Obama in Bill's comments wanted to do going forward.

Bill said that Obama, agreed with Bush on what should be done and quoted him. He took a quote where Obama said that, just like Bush, he was for the same thing in Iraq - a stable country. He left out that Obama continued that he disagreed completely with how to get there. He then described something similar to things Kerry spoke of - starting with a regional summit. (No surprise - why would he stake a position different than the candidate's, when from the answer to the IWR he was clearly sensitive to his role in that election.) He went further than Kerry, saying that not only was what was needed different than what Bush was doing - there was a real possibility that it could only be done by someone else as Bush had no credibility. (All in all, a great answer - Kerry plan, plus saying Kerry could do what Bush couldn't.) Now there WAS someone agreeing with Bush going forward who WJC could have been confused by. Clinton himself was saying that and attacking the left on his book tour. (aside - Wouldn't Obama's answer have been great said by Clinton on that book tour - specifically backing the nominee's plan or a variation of it - and saying Kerry was well suited to do it? )

Why was that lie important? He and all the Clinton people were building the case that Iraq was a wash between HRC and Obama. Even more than the initial vote, what they wanted to do going forward was the criterion. This was an effort to place Obama closer to Bush than HRC - and it was being put into the American consciousness by the Democrat, who could command the most media. As this was my view of the worst part of that Clinton attack, I was happy to hear Kerry say that having been President didn't allow Clinton to abuse the truth.

I am discouraged by the primitive level of our political discourse. I understand that the corporate media keeps us divided and dumb on substance-less sound bites but we seem unable to place things in any rational context.

Bill Clinton as Dr. Evil. The story we're getting now it that Bill Clinton, not Karl Rove, not Grover Norquist, is the evil neocon genius who manipulates the media and controls the minds of all but the most enlightened Americans. Of course, two weeks ago, the same people kept trying to portray Bill as a backward hillbilly who couldn't control his own mouth. But in one week, he has become Machiavelli.

It is no wonder that the republicans keep beating us. We would rather eat our own than reflect on our actions. Passion is a wonderful thing, but the enemy has learned to use it against us. It is no wonder they can do the same trick on us election after election; we can't even remember two weeks ago, let along two years.

We're getting to be pathetic.

what he did was extremely like what Rove did in 2004. The intent, then and now, was to influence people that they had the same plans as Bush at that juncture.

To show you how well it worked - many people HERE state that Kerry and Bush were similar or that Kerry had no plan or that it always changed. NOT TRUE. He had one very consistent philosophy from the 2003 until now - where the plan changed with the situation on the ground. Amazingly our media that abetted the lie in 2004 - recognized the Iraq Study Group recommendations as what Kerry proposed - it goes without saying that it was night and day different than Bush.

As to not remembering - I made a case and I don't see you arguing on the merits. PS I never would have said Bill was a "backward hillbilly", that's stupid.

The truth is BILL LIED ON IRAQ - on his position and on Obama's.

When Rove and his hit men take down Obama.... just as they did Bill. Except there is a difference. They didn't take Bill down... he fought back. Barack is easy pickings... fresh meat for the vultures......

:popcorn: :cry:

Oh what could have been.....

and he didn't.

It has been obvious to me that Obama's speech on October 26th 2002 - - - - two weeks after the IWR was passed - - - was made up of bits and pieces gleaned from Wellstone, Hillary, and others that had dramtically stated their issues on the record, with a few "I know"s and "I'm not against all wars" peppered in.

Yet Obama has never once been able to explain how he knew. Not once, to this very day.

How?...Because they couldn't or wouldn't show any proof, because they were lairs, and they were greedy oil men. It just whooshed over yours and Hillary's head though.

And shock...Obama isn't against all wars, he is only opposed to, if you read his speach "a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."

yes let's expose that speech a little more. Here it is then:

October 2, 2002

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let??s finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

You know that is not the true date, don't you?

Just thought I should point that out.

At least the CBS News version has a better title to the very same, word for word article. I'd bet someone from the Clinton camp caught the Wapo article and set that journalist straight?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/16/politics/washingtonpost/main4102946.shtml

Thanks McCamy for your "good catch" post,
I'll see if I can find my "STFU" can and send one to Hannity, MSM, et al.


ITMT, I found another article from Australia (go figure, It's a Murdoch rag)entitled "Hillary Clinton's female avengers to hit Barack Obama" which proves that this is yet more divisive BS coming from right wing attack machines to divide and conquer Democrats. This Ohio based group plans to "actively work against Barack Obama of he becomes the party's nominee."
The name of the group isn't mentioned in the article but am going to research them to see what their real affiliations are.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23710227-2703,00.html

It wouldn't surprise me at all if this group is a Republican front "grassroots" org paid for by RNC.

and you use it in a derogatory way to slam a presidential candidate like something's seriously wrong with someone. Do you not understand that DID is a result of severe abuse and is usually a child's way of coping with the abuse? The abused child didn't ask for the abuse, didn't cause the abuse and didn't deserve the abuse and now has this disorder to deal with. Then you make light of it.

And I am slamming the corporate media.

They are the ones who turned Clinton poor ----and now they have the nerve to blame college kids for doing it. So that they can turn the youth vote against the elderly vote just like in 1972. Show me one major news network run by college kids.

The Clinton camp was distributing oppo against Obama at the same time that his camp was distributing it against hers. That is just politics as usual. The shameful thing is the way that the press overplayed the Obama camp's oppo. I have never seen the national press act like this for a Democratic candidate. It goes beyond all reason. Their bias was obscene. It was a testament of how much they loved attacking Clinton.

Now, they are attempting to cover their tracks and pretend that they did not do it. They are trying to say Obama and those college kids made us do it .

Do not be fooled, Democrats. The MSM wants an anti-Obama backlash. Don't give it to them.

First the media attacks Obama and says Clinton told them to. Then they attack Hillary and say Barack made them do it.

I agree that MSM is the enemy, but sometimes it seems more like Walt Kelly had it right "We have met the enemy and" everyone say it with me now......

if we dont watch this poison on the screen and focus we'll be played for fools once again.

We'd be a month into fighting for Obama v Mccain.

This is ALL the MSM has done for Hillary: extended her demise, put her into further debt, and (on a positive note) further vetted our eventual nominee, Barack Obama.

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

need to keep it going as long as they can. When Hillary finally concedes and we have the big photo op of her and Obama smiling at each other, then overnight expect the tide to shift again. We'll all get up the next morning and there will be Obama and McCain on the big screen, fighting it out. It is what the press does.

Remember the Don Henley song "Dirty Laundry" -

I make my living off the Evening News
Just give me something-something I can use
People love it when you lose,
They love dirty laundry

You can google for the entire lyrics and you will see how it applies to this contest - no matter which "side" you're on.