NAME THOSE SPINS! The spins against Clinton are already numerous. Dems need to master each one:
// link //
previous // next //
THURSDAY, JANUARY 25, 2007
LIBERALS, HEAL OURSELVES:
In Hillary Clintons Monday web-cast
, she was asked about her favorite movie. All in all, it was pretty pointless stuff. Heres the full exchange:
MODERATOR (1/22/07): Jean from New Jersey has a question on a lighter note. What's your favorite movie?
CLINTON: My favorite movie. I've had favorite movies at different stages in my life. When I was very much younger, The Wizard of Oz was my favorite movie. I just loved imagining myself being there with Dorothy and being part of that great adventure that she had. Probably when I was in college and law school, Casablanca. I watched it I don't know how many times. It always was so much fun. By the time we watched it over and over again, we were actually reciting the dialogue. And I suppose in the last years, Out of Africa. I love Meryl Streep and Robert Redford. Those are three of my favorite movies.
Pretty insignificant stuff—unless you happen to be a mind-reader. In short order, one such seer penned a Standard Complaint about Clintons character flaws—flaws which were allegedly put on display by this troubling statement. Yep! This observer called Clintons statement particularly telling, saying it showed that HRC is—what else?— too calculating:
UNNAMED OBSERVER (1/22/07): [I]t was her answers on favorite movies that were particularly telling, especially since she had a long time to think about this one. When she was very young, her favorite was "The Wizard of Oz." When she was in law school, her favorite was "Casablanca." But her favorite "in the last year" (she might have said "years," but it was hard to tell) is "Out of Africa." Okay, now I love that movie, but geez, that was released in 1985!
Now, one could say she's playing for classics in her movie selections. NAAAAAW, she wouldn't do that, now would she?
One of the biggest criticisms about Senator Clinton is that she's too calculating and not spontaneous enough. If anything goes to that stereotype it's her movies. It outs her completely.
One could say she's playing for classics. Of course, one could also say something else—that she had named her three favorite movies.
To all appearances, this observer had no way of knowing that anything other than that had occurred. But she went ahead and rendered her judgment anyway. Once again, we could see that Clinton is too calculating. And not spontaneous enough.
For the record, this is familiar stuff. This observer was reciting a Standard Complaint about Clintons deeply troubling character. It has been said again and again; Clinton is too calculating—inauthentic, fake, false/phony; she just wont tell you what she believes. But then, mind-reading pundits have lodged this complaint against almost all Major Dems for the past fifteen years. Its the heart and soul of the pundit critique of those troubling characters, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Clinton. And every
trivial action and statement seems to prove the truth of this charge. Gore was a fake when he wore a brown suit. Now, Clintons a fake—shes too calculating—when she names her three favorite movies.
But this latest analysis wasnt
offered by a mainstream pundit. It wasnt made by an RNC hack. No, it was made by a leading liberal at the Huffington Post
—by someone whose work we normally admire! We wont even bother to comment further. To see the full piece, just click here
OK, well offer this one further comment. Its hard to know how well ever persuade journalists to stop doing this if were so eager to do it ourselves. Good Lord, friends and allies—Good God! How easy it is for mainstream scribes to lodge their weird thoughts in our heads!
THE IC FACTOR:
Did President Bush do something wrong when he congratulated the Democrat majority Tuesday night? We think the complaint is slightly tortured—and well guess that many readers of the Washington Post are puzzled by todays report
describing the outrage among certain Dems. The current congressional majority is made up of Democrats
We dont think its clearly wrong to refer to a Democrat majority, although we wouldnt use the locution ourselves. Many people will read that report will wonder why were complaining.
On the other hand, Bush has begun, in the past year, to refer in speeches to the Democrat Party. (We think this is new for Bush, although were not sure.) Plainly, there is
something wrong with this locution. The Democratic Partys actual name is well known. It appears on the partys letter-head, and its featured at the partys web site. Indeed, the name has been in use, unchanged, since the 1830s; people have had lots of time to commit it to memory. When Bush refers to the Democrat Party, hes engaging in a familiar type of schoolyard behavior—a particular type of childish conduct that others in his party have long sponsored. Its dumb; its rude; its stupid; its childish. And no, it isnt
that other locution, the one weve now angrily flagged.
So there we go again, dear readers! Indeed, its typical of the way we Dems do politics—to see us raising a flap about the locution where its harder
to discern an offense. Lets say it again. Many readers of the Post will be puzzled by the complaint which is detailed this morning. Its dumb—but typical—when we take our stand on the ground where well make out less well.
Elsewhere, of course, were often happy to get ourselves royally dumped on. On Monday night, Terry McAuliffe appeared on The OReilly Factor. Three separate times, OReilly asked questions about the Democrat Party, and McAuliffe happily answered each time, without even making a jocular request that his party be called by its actual name. Many viewers understood the dynamic of these exchanges; OReilly was sneering at our party, and a former party chairman was happily taking it. In the same interview, McAuliffe failed to challenge OReillys denigrations of George Soros and of the smear sites he sponsors. Later, McAuliffe clumsily seemed to say that other Dems were now going to do to Clinton what Bush did to John McCain in South Carolina. That may not be what he intended to say. But it is how his statement sounded.
Often, we Dems dont play this game reel gud. Many readers will be puzzled by the strained complaint discussed in the Post. Theyll puzzle at how petty we Dems have become! As weve frequently done in the past, weve figured out how to lose one again.
DITTO THIS: On the same topic, we were surprised when we saw Michelle Pilecki make the following claim about Scott Pelley. It appeared in the Huffington Post:
PILECKI (1/19/07): CBS Scott Pelley irked more than a few people in his 60 Minutes interview with President Bush by his regular references to the "Democrat Party," and I've heard similar references on NPR, among others.
We were dubious, so we sent our fact-checking team into action. According to the CBS transcript
, neither Pelley nor Bush ever used the term Democrat Party (or Democratic Party) during this interview. Transcripts of TV shows arent always accurate, so we wasted our time watching the video, and no one said Democrat Party there either. Late in the session, Pelley did refer to the Democrat leadership and to the alleged lack of a Democrat plan for Iraq. But that isnt what Pilecki accused him of saying—and those usages are less clearly inappropriate than the phantom usage she put inside quotes.
Sometimes, we libs dont play this game reel gud. No, Pelley never said Democrat Party. But then, as pseudo-cons have learned through the years, it sure can feel good to pretend!
Special report: A bad new idea!
PART 3—NAME THOSE SPINS:
Lets face it—our contemporary political press corps is often spectacularly stupid. Indeed, its a basic part of their modern culture—and Times
hiring of Ana Marie Cox seems designed to prove it. Cox gained renown by playing the dirty girl—the young woman who constantly discusses her body and makes insinuations about her loose conduct. In pundit culture, of course, thats pure gold. It led to her hiring, and to this dim-witted post
which she recently offered at Times
new blog. Cox was discussing the unsourced, vague allegation that Hillary Clintons campaign had played some role in the recent fake story about Obama:
COX (1/22/07): Part of the stereotype HRC has to buck is that she'll do anything to win...A really smart GOP operative can put out the most outrageous dirt about a Dem challenger (or even a Republican one) and even if no one believes the dirt, having Hillary's fingerprints on it is credible. It doesn't help that Hillary's people are pretty ruthless—they're just also basically, you know honorable.
Even after reading the link which Cox provided, we didnt understand the part about being honorable, But then, you dont hire smutty-talk throwbacks like Cox because you want coherence.
Cox has little of value to say. But she does know how to memorize spin, the essential skill of the modern pundit. She knows she has to mention flip-flop if she types even twenty words about Kerry—and shes right at home with the well-scripted claim that Clinton will do anything to win. Indeed, this has been a Standard Attack against leading Dems over the course of the past fifteen years. It was one of the basic claims in Campaign 2000: Al Gore will do and say anything!
And the press corps halfwits will endlessly recite this claim about Clinton, until we learn how to make them stop.
How much do pundits love this claim? Its amazing that it kept being said about Gore, given Bushs conduct in Campaign 2000—in the South Carolina primary, for example. Bush's slashing tactics in the state were ferocious even by South Carolina's down-and-dirty standards, Eric Pooley wrote in Time
, the magazine for which Cox now types. In Newsweek
, Evan Thomas went into a bit more detail:
THOMAS (2/28/99): It [Bushs defeat in the New Hampshire primary] was the beginning of a low road. Bush's first stop after losing the New Hampshire primary was at Bob Jones University in Greenville, S.C., in the heart of the Bible belt. Before his speech, Bush met in a holding room with his top man in South Carolina, Warren Tompkins. "I know that you have done this before," Bush said. "Let's get out there and do it again." Do what, exactly? The candidate did not need to be specific. Tompkins, he knew, was an old colleague of the late Lee Atwater, the self-described "Bad Boy" of South Carolina politics...Atwater and Tompkins had been particularly effective in conjuring up demons that would frighten and energize the Bible-belt vote. George W knew all this firsthand.
Bush agreed to do whatever it would take to win, Pooley wrote in Time
. And in South Carolina, whatever it takes has a colorful lineage.
Various news orgs described the way Tompkins drove the campaign against McCain—the campaign which worked through ugly, anonymous phone calls. In return, McCain sponsored anonymous phone calls about Bush in Michigan—then blatantly lied to the press corp about them. But so what? Within a few weeks, the press corps went back to its preferred, scripted message, endlessly saying that Gore
would do anything! Nothing dimly resembling South Carolina (or Michigan) had occurred in the Dem primary campaigns. But so what? It was Gore
who would do and say anything—and Cox is prepared to repeat the same claim about Candidate Clinton today. Maybe its the dirty girls endless *ss-f*cking which has left her brain in this sad state.
But then, the spins against Clinton are already endless—and scribes are quite good at reciting them. With that in mind, we recommend this post by Johnson and Boyce
, who start to list these Standard Claims. Hillary Clinton is fake—inauthentic.
And: Clinton is polarizing—too divisive.
And the claim that Clinton will do anything to win—the claim that Cox so happily channeled—will be widely bruited too. Well only suggest that libs and Dems learn how to challenge this tired old claim. In the wake of the Bush years, its simply astounding to see this claim reflexively used against Dem
leaders. But it will
be said, again and again. Until Clinton does something that warrants this charge, we need to learn how to rebut it.
But readers, of all the Standard Claims, our favorite was channeled by Howard Fineman during a recent Imus
appearance. Hillary Clinton is unelectable!
Should we laugh—or should we cry—when our pundits recite such fine tales?
Is Clinton unelectable? And special bonus! Did Clinton lie?