--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 29, 2008, at 12:02 PM, authfriend wrote: <snip> > > She is an equal-opportunity basher, but bashing-- > > not reporting or serious journalism--is what she > > does. And she has hated the Clintons forever; she's > > led the media pack in attacking them. How on > > EARTH could you think I would find her admirable?? > > Simply because there are times when I can hear echoes of > her talking points in what you write. But if I'm wrong > I'm wrong.
Which talking points?? > > Notice that her column doesn't name any of the > > "Clinton loyalists" she claims are speculating > > about Hillary planning to run in 2012. That's a red > > flag. Like Uyrgur, she mentions the rumor because > > it makes Clinton look bad, and she's in the > > business of making people she doesn't like look bad. > > Interesting, Judy, that you feel all these people hate > HIllary. I assume you think this is sort of a blind, > unreasoning hatred. Any idea why they might feel this > way? No. It's a big mystery that people have been commenting on for years. Lots of theories, but nobody's ever really been able to nail it down. It's been going on since before Bill Clinton was elected for the first time. > > Mark Karlin is the editor of a left-wing blog; he > > isn't a "well-known journalist" except in the lefty > > blogosphere, most of which is in the tank for Obama, > > including his blog, BuzzFlash. In no way does he > > belong to the MSM. > > Is that a polite way of saying he's full of it, or his > opinion doesn't count, or something else to that effect? You called him a "well-known journalist," as if that gave him extra credibility. I'm just pointing out that he isn't, and also that he's not even trying to be objective. > > And all he's reporting is that "there has been > > speculation..." No names. In other words, he's > > promoting a nasty rumor that makes Clinton look > > bad, just like Dowd and Uygur, because he supports > > Obama and loathes the Clintons. Like them, he has > > zero evidence for that speculation. > > OK, so all 3 of these people who all write for blogs/papers > read by many others, are all nitwit conspiracy theorists? Hard to tell. It's more likely, I think, that they know this theory is vastly unlikely and are promoting it anyway because they want, as I said, to make Clinton look bad. If they really believe it, then they're just naive. > If so, why hasn't anyone who doesn't believe this terrible > rumor denounce them or it? I haven't seen anyone do that > yet, have you? Most knowledgeable political writers consider it too silly to even dispute, I would imagine. But there have been some who have taken it on. For example, from Kevin Drum's Washingon Monthly blog, Political Animal: http://tinyurl.com/2j6wkw amd http://tinyurl.com/ynskv8 Drum is an Obama supporter, as it happens. (BTW, his abbreviation "CDS" stands for Clinton Derangement Syndrome, a term commonly used to refer to Hillary-haters.) > > And this rumor, as I've already pointed out, makes > > no sense at all: If Hillary is perceived as > > contributing to McCain winning the election, she'll > > be a pariah among Democrats. She wouldn't get > > anywhere *near* the nomination in 2012. She would > > also get nowhere in the Senate for the rest of her > > term and would almost certainly lose her Senate > > seat in 2012. > > Well, on the surface that sounds reasonable, Judy, but > evidently at least 3 of these journalists seem to think > differently. Only two of them could be called journalists, and they're really opinion columnists rather than reporters (Dowd and Karlin). > They seem to think Hillary's win-at-all-costs strategy would > at least work enough to carry her over until then. I don't know what they think, because none of them has actually addressed the objections I raised. Why do you make that assumption about what they think when they've said nothing along those lines? <snip> > > (Also see my response to do.rflex, which I'll post > > shortly, for my take on some of the specifics.) > > You've been taken in, I'm afraid. The vast majority of > the "hints" have been bogus, instigated by the right > wing and/or the Obama campaign and promulgated by the > media and a significant portion of the lefty blogosphere. > > Judy, this is exactly the kind of conspiracy-theorizing > you scoffed at in my post. All of these people are working > together to bash Hillary?! In effect, but they're doing it individually, not as part of some grand organized conspiracy. It's a meme that has taken hold that supports their predispositions. > If only the left were so well-organized. Not to mention that > the right-wing seems to detest Obama more than they do Hillary. It's hard to tell where the right wing is at in terms of what its goals are. Who do they think will be the easiest to beat? Whichever it is, they're going to try to bash the other one, obviously. But they don't seem to agree as to whether they want McCain to run against Obama or Hillary. Earlier in the campaign, it seemed to be Obama, but now that Obama looks a lot stronger than they thought, some of them have switched. Their *natural* tendency is to be against Hillary, but whether they follow through and bash her more than Obama depends on who they'd prefer to run against, as I said. It isn't at all clear-cut at this point. And some of them are now bashing Obama because they just assume he'll be the nominee, so they might as well start tearing him down now. > But anyway, thanks for your reasoned and well-thought-out > response. I appreciate it. And it does give me food for > thought. You're more than welcome. Thanks for maintaining a cordial tone. I'd be delighted to continue the discussion any time.
