Clintonistas Targeting Non-Conformists
By Nathan Nelson Posted in 2008 — Comments (41) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Promoted from blogs. While I don't particularly care for any talk radio personality, if I was running the Clinton campaign they'd certainly be on my lists.
As for the left-blogosphere... well. Plata o plomo?, guys? - Moe Lane
Eric (Classical Values) is blogging about why the so-called "Clinton left" wants to attack center-right figures like Michael Smerconish and even center-left figures like Don Imus instead of going after hardcore rightwingers. According to Eric, the organization often responsible for trying to silence these centrist voices - Media Matters - is actually a Clintonista organization. Money quote:
I think the Clinton left would rather take down guys like Imus or Smerconish than a nutjob like Michael Savage, and that's because moderates and independents are a bigger threat. The far right is easily stereotyped, and in the long run, they can actually be seen as helping (not hurting) Hillary Clinton. If the goal is to get her elected, silencing the moderates (and, of course, libertarians like Neil Boortz) is a vital first step. If I were working for the Hillary campaign, I'd advise precisely such a campaign. Little wonder that another primary target of the Media Matters campaign is Democrat Chris Matthews. Like Imus, he's a Democrat against Hillary. They hate Matthews so much it reminds me of the attacks on Lieberman. Seriously; if you check out the links, you begin to see a pattern. While its stated goal might be to go after the right wing, Media Matters is very much in the business of enforcing Democratic political conformity.
While refraining from calling Michael Savage "a nutjob," I couldn't agree with Eric more. I think things are really going to get interesting if Markos Moulitsas and the rest of the Daily Kos crew continue to disavow Hillary Clinton. We could see an all out war within the Democratic Party. The Clintonistas have decided that it's Hillary's manifest destiny to be the next President of the United States, and anyone who tries to thwart that destiny - outside of the Democratic Party, certainly, but also within it - is vulnerable to the Clinton smear campaign. Don't be surprised if liberals like Markos Moulitsas, Arianna Huffington, et al., end up in the crosshairs.
If we're to believe Newsweek, that is. (Via Ann Althouse)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Sharpton has not decided yet, and I think that he is currently leaning towards Hillary or Edwards since he's a limelight seeker.
Fides non in bonus intentions , tamen in bonus factum
For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.
Yes, Imus made the remark, but he is out of office because the liberal establishment went full force against him, instead of accepting his apology. I quoted several liberal columnists and a liberal communications watchdog who emphasized that Imus was "different" because his show had political content. Imus probably crossed the liberals' line by having "too many" conservatives on the air.
The odds are that if Imus' liberal credentials were in good standing, he would have been forgiven like Rosie was after making remarks about the Chinese language.
Let's face it, as a card carrying Democrat* I ought to know.
The D. party has the organizational skills that God gave a stalk of celery. The party as a whole could not get it together enough to manipulate the media in this manner. I think the reality is that the blogosphere and more outspoken wings of the party got some momentum from the blatant crap spewed by Imus, then quickly worked up with some good old fashioned righteous indignation. This was not doubt helped by the way that virtually no one could defend what Imus said. The
"leadership" just got out of the way and let it all happen in front of them.
I think that I heard that the leadership may have requested a definitive withdrawal date from the louder wings about the whole Imus affair, but later just figured they should give up and let the wingers take him.
*WHY I come here and read and try to behave myself would be an entirely inappropriate threadjack. Let's just say that I find it a lot more interesting here than at Kos.
The D. party has the organizational skills that God gave a stalk of celery.
Normally, the above statement is quite correct. Most of the Democratic Party couldn't get organized if it wanted to. The Clintons are the exception. As has been said and said again, the Clinton campaign is a well-oiled machine and it never truly stopped running after Bill Clinton left office. It's been running for Hillary ever since, and it's been running for the White House. Her Senate seat was just a practice run. For that matter, Bill Clinton's own presidency may just have been a practice run.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me
The Clinton machine is the largest and most efficient in the party. Ironically, that is not helping at all with many Dems, who just don't trust her to be a real leader.
the support of Obama by George Soros. All of Soros's money may not be enough to defeat Hillary, but money given to Obama is money not available to Hillary.
Hillary's poll negatives will be a serious problem for her in both the primaries and the general election.
Democrats on Iraq: "We don't want to win. We just want to quit."
My SUVs park in the shade of AlGore's carbon toeprint.
I'm certainly not justifying what Imus said, but there can be no question that the Left sought his head on a platter. I think this is a convincing reason for exactly why they did that.
I would also point out that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton aren't the only ones who were on TV ripping Imus a new one. Slick Willie also got on TV to call Imus's remarks racist and sexist (I thought the latter was rich considering his womanizing behavior with White House interns). At this moment, Bill Clinton exists for one thing: Hillary's campaign. Of course, that may always have been true, but it's certainly true now. If he was on TV to bash Imus, there can be little question that Hillary's campaign wanted Imus to crash and burn.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me
...but I don't think they were just making an example of Imus. They perceived him as a real threat in and of himself. The Left knows that Americans listen to talk radio, which is overwhelmingly conservative, so the last thing they need is center-left voices like Imus also coming out against them.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me
at least has some sense, for a liberal anyway. He doesn't like Shrillary and that's good enough for me.
When it gets closer to the election, Matthews will be there to protect the democratic nominee, Hillary or Obama.
(Reposted from April 12).
You’re a good little Liberal. You make fun of everyone, nothing is sacred. Your remarks and your brand of unfunny comedy should have been grounds for dismissal decades ago, but you soldiered on. You made a nice warm bed for all your Liberal friends to cozy up in and have their morning coffee. Every so often, you’d open your arms to a non-Liberal. You’d feel dirty about it, but it was necessary for karma’s sake. Then one morning, you let it slip. You and your producer are bantering back and forth and it comes out that you hate New Jersey. You call it a nasty state with ugly people. But, you both agree that Tennessee is a fine state with cute people. Tenn., though, isn’t quite so Liberal. In fact, the Volunteer state so strayed to the other side, it abandoned one son (Gore) for another (Thompson), and the latter may just become president if he chooses to run. How could you? You betrayed your little Liberal friends. Have you gone mad? Have they [Conservatives] infected you? That must be the case. It is the only explanation. Unfortunately, there is but one cure. You must be banished, ostracized from the Liberal community before you infect them too. But there’s something else. Something your Liberal friends do not want known. They also despise NJ. They find it an ugly, horrible place. Your Liberal colleagues have plans for New Jersey. They want to remake it in their Liberal image. This can’t happen if you publicize the truth. Your Liberal friends can’t execute their plans if everyone is watching them. People [Conservatives] might even step up and protect NJ. Your Liberal friends fear this. If people were ever to save NJ, give it hope, self-reliance, then Liberals might find themselves banished from society. So, you see, it’s for the good of the cause that your Liberal friends must silence you. You understand, of course – because you’re still a good little Liberal.
R.J.
She does not have to appear on Imus any more. Appearing on Imus has become an almost obligatory rite of passage for presidential candidates.
Imagine how he would have shredded some of her "triangulating," or "If I knew then what I know now about Iraq" or "I though I was voting for UN inspectors in Iraq, but I didn't read the legislation; I was briefed on it" nonsense.
Media Matters took down Imus to save Hillary from appearing on it.
Hillary, called her "Satan" and never invited her on the show.
Which may be why Hillary is not all that fond of him.
(Although I don't believe the conspiracy theory that Hillary "took him out.")
Media Matters had been monitoring Imus for several months. Every freaking weekday morning.
Why?
Imus routinely bashed Bush, Rice, and especially Cheney.
One would think that the I-Man and Media Matters were on the same side.
Unless, of course, Media Matters for America had a different agenda, and a different patron. Which it apparently did.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
It may be a case of the left eating one of their own after all.
There is a good chance that Imus will be back on a different venue. If he feels that Hillary has wronged him he will have the means to take a measure of revenge.
Or to borrow from Machiavelli never wound an enemy.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Leverkuhn's intitial comment notwithstanding. It makes sense for them to attack their more credible opponents rather than to attack the right fringe.
It's interesting to me that as dedicated a Democrat as Matthews can be considered a tool of the right by that crew. Apparently, if a Democrat isn't somewhere inside the left wing, he is suspected of being a closet enemy.
I think it's good for us. They're eating their own, at least until after the primaries.
Or maybe these blogs are just for show.
Democrats on Iraq: "We don't want to win. We just want to quit."
My SUVs park in the shade of AlGore's carbon big toeprint.
By that I mean I have noticed that Dkos has moderated thier front page (while still foaming LLL's) they have greatly moderated themselves from the days of "screm them" days made famous by Kos's statement about US security personel burnt and hung off a bridge in Falluja.
I have noticed alot more politcal savy and restraint on thier site since those days of wide open. I would not be suprised at all if the Dem leadership goes with Hillary that Kos doesn't change his tune in a full 180.
You could be right, but if Kos doesn't moderate his position and go with Hillary there's eventually going to be a clash of the titans.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me
Kos is a guy with a website. Ten to twenty times my* readership, yawp - but he's never been in a scenario where his opponent's the one with the media backup. Yes, you can win without the media on your side. The GOP has been doing it for years... but that's because we know how.
Interesting to see whether Kos does.
Moe
PS: No, in fact I don't subscribe to the "transformative power of the blogosphere" meme. What gave it away? :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
*Probably more like thirty to forty times my readership, as opposed to this site's.
Back in my boyscouting days, I was deeply into survival camping, and one of the devices I learned to make was a squirrel trap. This was a somewhat nasty device that took advantage of an oddity in squirrel psychology: the can't back up. They'll run along a branch after they know they're heading into trouble, and eventually stick thier little heads into a snare, simply because they don't know how to change directions.
Now, I'm not saying that the Kos crowd are squirrely, but... wait, yeah, I AM saying that they're squirrely. Hmmm.
...but I do know that right now he intends to use whatever amount of power he is to stop Hillary Clinton. He couldn't make it more clear. Well, I suppose he could make it more clear by saying so, but in the world of political subtlety he's already making it more clear than he needs to.
Plus, it isn't just Kos. I just hold him up as the icon of the extreme Left. It's also potentially MoveOn.org, Cindy Sheehan, et al. It's potentially the same people who got Ned Lamont through a primary against Joe Lieberman. If it were just Kos all by himself that would be one thing, and in the end it may be - I think MoveOn.org is more concerned about political relevance than ideological purity; they went after Lieberman because he was vulnerable, but they may not be looking for a fight with Clinton, who is anything but vulnerable. But if all of the same forces who joined together to oust Joe Lieberman do the same to keep Clinton from winning the Democratic primaries, they may be successful. They'll at least give her a run for her money. Like I said, clash of the titans.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me
While I might be willing to agree with the argument that they are attacking the middle rather than the edge, mainly because it is a fairly common, I am not ready to believe that they have the ability to take out someone like Imus whenever they wish.
Imus is, at best, a case of fortunate circumstances, although I personally think he helped Clinton, unintentionally, by his constant attacks against her. Imus danced on the cliff and finally took one step too far.
Clinton has been disliked by a large part of the Democratic Party for a long time. She may have the DLC/PPP wing of the Party in her belt but she has a long way to go to win the activist wing or the unions.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Ultimately, it was Imus who did himself in. But I think Hillary's people - and there can be no question that Media Matters constitutes Hillary's people - were right there waiting like vultures.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me
I think Hillary's strategists took an opportunity and made the most of it, in a manner that would have made Machiavelli proud.
They had Media Matters do a little shrilling to get the ball rolling, and then kept up the drum beat to get the various media organizations treat it as a "news" story (cuz let's face it, Imus saying something distasteful is normally about as newsworthy as the neighbor dog barking all night), and made sure no one stepped in to defend Imus, as they have to protect other media personalities who've said outrageous things (a certain chubby lesbian comes to mind...).
Not only did they silience a critic within the party (a MUCH larger threat than anyone in the GOP), but they also handed the kill to Sharpton as a sweetener for an endorsement. They've been able to bribe thier way to endorsements from other black "leaders" with "consulting fees", but they needed another coin to buy Sharpton. Anyone who's followed Sharpton's career isn't too surprised that the way they had to buy him was by letting him feed his enormous ego off of the Imus's corpse. They actually managed to kill off an enemy and buy an important endorsement off of the same opportunity. I'm impressed.
Hillary was part of it, Sharpton also won from it, and there were other Democratic winners like a media group which said this is just one of multiple things it wants to censor. In fact that is a big Democratic goal, to revive the "fairness doctrine", which would effectively kill conservative talk radio.
Hillary was certainly right there to try and take advantage of it. As Obama continues to gain, Hillary is going to the gender card more and more often.
I mean the strongest justification was that he thoughtlessly attacked a group of nice young women who were not seeking the limelight, so ultimately he insulted innocents. And yes, it was unbecoming of him. Still, I am surprised by the voracity of the take-down. He realized his mistake, and apologized, but when I heard Sharpton tell him that "forgiveness is a process" I just remember thinking it was very weird. Jesse Jackson got 50 people to march in Chicago, and Imus loses not just one job, but two? AND he has done lots of philothranpic works... it just seemed really extreme. I'd be interested to hear your take on what was really going on there.
When a public person says something really stupid they either work to cut it off IMMEDIATELY or they suffer the consequences.
IMO, this comment isn't really much different than Kerry's comment about getting stuck in the military. Bad jokes that were perceived as insults to protected groups* in this country. In both situations they could have quickly defused the situation had they apologized immediately and paid their pennance. But neither did. And they suffered for it. Kerry ended what Presidential fantasies he may have had. Imus lost his job.
But let's not forget that the main reason why Imus lost his job is because corporations are VERY risk averse when it comes to their image. The advertisers got spooked almost immediately and without advertisers Imus has no value for Viacom.
Far too often we assume far greater devious skill than really exists.
Somebody upthread asked why Media Matters had someone assigned to monitoring Imus, implying they were looking to dig up dirt on Imus. That doesn't seem likely. What DOES seem likely is that Imus has a lot of political guests on his show and Media Matters wants to hear what they have to say.
Occam's Razor and all that.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
I have to disagree with you here, Flyer. Media Matters went after Don Imus pretty aggressively. Look at how they responded to the Amanda Marcotte scandal. Instead of going after her, they went after those who were demanding her resignation or dismissal, even though she had insulted Christians and blasphemed the Christian God. Why didn't they similarly defend Don Imus, who is on the center-left? Because he isn't one of Hillary's cheerleaders, and because he's an independent voice in talk radio. He's dangerous to them.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me
Don Imus had about 6 million listeners. Amanda Marcotte was a nobody blogger whose only claim to fame was some obnoxious comments about Catholics.
Don Imus may be on the Center-Left but he sure isn't perceived that way by most people on the Left. Most consider him a right wing stooge. I personally couldn't really tell you where he stands politically. I used to listen to him about 10 years ago but I always found him all over the place politically.
Media Matters may favor Clinton but they are primarily a Liberal watchdog. And I don't know the real reason why MM went after Imus so hard. It could have been as simple as the person monitoring felt a personal insult. After reading the original story I don't feel it was terribly hostile. Par for the course really.
I suspect that Media Matters was just as surprised at how much traction this story got as Imus was.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
Now hold on, Flyer. Amanda Marcotte wasn't just a nobody blogger, she was one of the most popular bloggers in the liberal blogosphere. That's why the Edwards campaign hired her. Also, by their act of hiring her, they made her more than just a blogger - she was an Edwards campaign staffer. Was she on the same level as Imus? No, probably not, but that still doesn't explain why Media Matters defended her but attacked Imus. Both are leftists, so what's the difference? The difference is that Marcotte is much further left, while Imus is center-left and poses a real threat to Clinton's campaign and, I might add, Democratic prospects in 2008 in general. He's an independent voice with influence among the crucial independent voting bloc.
Of course he isn't considered to be on the center-left by the extreme left. Neither is Hillary Clinton, who is certainly on the left. Neither, for that matter, is Joe Lieberman, who on everything but defense issues is squarely on the left. The extreme left doesn't consider anybody who's not also on the extreme left to be on the left at all, much as extreme conservatives aren't willing to consider anybody other than Sam Brownback a true conservative in this field of candidates even though there are several others who are conservatives. Kos, the icon of the extreme left, has made clear that people like Clinton, Lieberman, and anyone else who shares their views are not considered to be true liberals or true Democrats by the extreme left. The fact remains that all of these people are indeed liberals by any objective standard, just as Imus is on the center-left by any objective standard.
Maybe I am reading too much conspiracy into it, but I couldn't help but notice that Bill Clinton was on TV calling Imus's comments racist and sexist. That really set off red flags for me, and then I found this story about Media Matters and it all clicked. Considering that Bill exists now only for Hillary's campaign and that (presumably) everything he says is vetted by the campaign, and considering the pro-Clinton bent of Media Matters, it seems to me that this is more than just your run of the mill conspiracy theory. I think the Clinton campaign wanted Imus to go down.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me
Sure, I've read that Media Matters was perhaps the first organization to take note of the incident and that they gave the first nudge out toward other organizations.
But you know you also cite this Marcotte situation and it seems like there's an example where another person/organization (Bill Donohoe, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights) took note of her hiring and her past statements and they gave the first nudge of that story out toward other organizations. Why does Media Matters take on the image of a shadowy clandestine operation with some chess-like master plan unfolding in lockstep with Hillary's presidential machinations, but the Catholic League was merely some concerned outfit expressing their opinion?
Seems like in both cases, you had some starting point that picked the ball up and got it moving, but which ultimately culminated in a much wider outcry, a lot of attention, and then some kind of resulting action in response to the criticism and pressure. And as you point out, Imus and Marcotte supporters were either simply too much in the minority, or they couldn't be bothered to make a loud and fearless stand for what they felt was the right response.
Seems like this is starting to dredge up some rather far fetched "vast conspiracy" theories. Might be interesting to speculate but is this really meant to be a serious line of inquiry?
Flyer -- Why did Media Matters's group as described by Newsweek react so strongly? How did it benefit them and how does it fit in with both Sharpton and Media Matter's spoken agenda to "Go after" other folks like Fox News, Hannity, Limbaugh, Glen Beck, etc?
IMHO Imus was considered "too conservative" and an example had to be made. It wasn't his remarks because rappers and Robert Byrd make worse every day.
By taking out Imus, Media Matters gets to tilt the airwaves "more left" and try and go for bigger game. Establishing Sharpton and Jackson as "moral authorities" etc.
Of course this risks a huge backlash by independent white men (Imus's target audience) who understood: one rule for Sharpton, Jackson, rappers, and another for them. And the extended middle finger that Dems and the Media gave them.
Typical for Dems and of course Media Matters. White guys are their enemy. Instead of, a voting group to be courted like everyone else.
You got examples of Robert Byrd making worse comments every day? Even a handful of comments made in the last 10 years would suffice. Comparing Don Imus to rappers is equally silly. Rappers are musicians that are politically insignificant. Don Imus had a showed with significant influence in American politics.
I really fail to see why you wish to defend Don Imus because he was a "white guy".
Media Matters wasn't trying to make an "example" of Imus. They do this stuff ALL THE TIME. The only difference here is the MSM picked it up and ran with it.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
but not Hillary. The woman couldn't fry a pancake and probably needs help getting dressed in the morning. You can't even give her credit for having the handlers she has, they gravitate to power and perceived opportunity.
Things are bass ackward here, neither Obama or Hillary have the media in their pocket, rather the media has them in their pocket. The media are the king makers, they will swing in support of candidates from issue to issue, from controversy to controversy, papering over or minimizing differences and weakness. They will sit back and judge, who's the bigger fool, who has the best chance of disguising what he or she is and fooling the semi-literate independents. Recall Dean/Kerry.
At some point the shift will begin, flaws that have existed for years will be "discovered", and a front runner will "emerge", accompanied by suitable snickers in editorial rooms.
Net, it quite possible that at the opportune time Hillary will be dumped in the compost heap. After which she may have a breakdown.
P S, there is no Dem leadership, there are Dem newspaper readers, TV news watchers, and poll and focus group analysts. But there are no Dem Leaders.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
She is not. The campaign is a front.
Bill is in charge. Hillary is the front designed to get Bill back into the White House as consigliere to run the government and make sure she doesn't blow her term like she did the health care bill back in 1994. Bill is her Tom Hagan and Michael Corleone all wrapped into one.
Hillary can be a good Senator, maybe a good Majority Leader, but not a President who can lead a nation at war. Her husband could do that in spades. She is not capable of that, for she doesn't have those gifts. She needs her husband to help her govern. That's her greatest weakness, and her Achilles Heel.
Bill's people were the one's who were running the Media Matters operation. They were the one's monitoring Imus. They're the only one's with the sense of strategic planning needed to know that Imus needed to go. And it is a sweet hunch that they'd like to take out Matthews.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
I think that Hillary is in charge and always has been. You think that her campaign is Bill's way to get back into the White House, but I think Bill's presidency was her way to get into the White House and just a stepping stone toward her own presidential bid. I think she ran the White House from 1993-2001, and I think she's looking to do so again from 2009-2017.
Regards,
Nate Nelson
Reality Mugged Me
I can assure you Bill is not in charge either. Ostensibly, maybe in the sense that he influences the pack of guttersnipe mud slingers that are strangely referred to as "Democratic strategists" but ultimately the cards are held by the media.
I don't wish to beat the point to death but any group of people dependent on the blessings and good wishes of an extremely powerful third party, as obscenely corrupt as they are, can hardly be described as being in charge. Their fortunes rely on the whims and idiocies of that third party, their calculations as to who can best mislead the electorate, cover their inadequacies, and in due time screw the public.
Both Bill and Hillary made a total and unforgettable mess in their first two years in the WH. They stumbled from pothole to pothole, gays in the military as their first initiative,mind boggling, the attempt to take over all prescription drug distribution for children, a tax increase, universal health care, and other blunders ascribable to the profoundly incompetent. Dick Morris saved their sorry asses, plain and simple.
Yet Bill walks away with the reputation of being a political genius.
More than anybody in the Dem field do they both desperately need the blessings of the MSM, they are truly the embodiment of The Emperors New Clothes.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
line of argument is that Media Matters didn't take down Imus. Imus took down Imus, with a handy assist from the radical left and race-baiters like Sharpton. And as far as "centrists" go, I hadn't noticed Matthews and Lou Dobbs getting trussed up and butchered like Imus.
On the other hand, I do agree that Media Matters is friendly to the Clintons. I've never known them to go after the Clintons or any of their friends.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli