Clinton Derangement Syndrome = CDS = Clinton Double-Standard
Nothing is more "entertaining" these days than Recommended Diaries at Daily Kos by "progressives" opposed to Sen. Hillary Clinton. Here's one of the latest:
The author, Icebergslim, has this extremely profound Straight-Talking Reality-BasedTM summary:
When you own the media, call in favors, plant questions, what else can you conclude?
A perfect example of CDS.
The Clintons own the media? Not unless you completely slept through the period starting, say, in 1992.
Call in favors? I'd love to hear what the specific favors were that the Clinton campaign called in since no evidence is actually provided in the diary to back this up. The again, maybe Icebergslim considered the questions aimed at making the candidates go after Sen. Clinton a "favor" to Sen. Clinton.
Plant questions? This is the most nonsensical piece of crap I have seen post-debate. Note to people living on Earth: when the media hosts any debate, they are the ones who traditionally *choose* (i.e. "plant") the questions. Unless you slept through the entire period of American history when the media started hosting campaign debates, this is not a "scandal". The media have always "planted" whatever piece of crap questions they wanted thrown at candidates - and Thursday's event was no aberration. The only reason it is being falsely portrayed as an aberration (more on this below) - i.e., a "planting" - is that it was a stupid question that wasn't tough on Sen. Clinton and the reference to "planting" helps her opponents in the primary. Not to mention that the stupid question that the student asked Sen. Clinton ("diamonds or pearls") was a question the student had originally submitted - it wasn't a question "planted" by CNN from thin air. It was voluntarily "planted" by the student on the list of questions she submitted to CNN, and she consented to ask Sen. Clinton the question - when CNN displayed their well-known poor judgement by picking that question from her list.Can you imagine Icebergslim writing a similarly scandalized diary after the previous CNN-hosted debate back in late July 2007? I haven't found any so far, but in that debate, hosted by CNN's Anderson Cooper - whom Icebergslim portrays in his current diary as following "the script" to prop up Sen. Clinton - there was this (emphasis Somerby's):
But of course, we had to hurry to our next question—one of four, sprinkled throughout, in which citizens targeted Clinton:
QUESTION: Hi. My name is Chris Nolan and I'm a Democratic precinct committeeman from Mundelein, Illinois. And my question is for Hillary Clinton.
With Bush, Clinton, and Bush again serving as the last three presidents, how would electing you, a Clinton, constitute the type of change in Washington so many people in the heartland are yearning for, and what your campaign has been talking about? I was also wondering if any of the other candidates had a problem with the same two families being in charge of the executive branch of government for 28 consecutive years, if Hillary Clinton were to potentially be elected and then re-elected.
Good luck. And, whoever becomes the nominee, I'm pulling for you. Go Democrats!
The question went to Clinton, then to Gravel and Obama. Yesterday, at Politico, Nolan showered praise on himself for the brilliant way he engineered the encounter (click here, go to item #3). Well only offer this brief excerpt from his detailed discussion:
NOLAN: It was just what I had wanted: to take a swipe at Clinton and then have Barack follow up with his change has to be more than a slogan message. What I saw was that Hillary was hurt by the question, perhaps even a bit angry or annoyed by it. Possibly catching her off guard, she resorted to clinging onto Bill's tattered coattails while at the same time asking to be judged on her own merits. The question was meant to call her out, and then let Obama finish her off. My ultimate purpose was to start a fight—I set them up perfectly for it...
No one so brilliant! (Nolan wanted to hear Obamas message—the one thats more than a slogan.) But so it goes when big news orgs avail themselves of the peoples wisdom. For the record, this question is such a press corps favorite that it was easy for CNN to pick it. (In this construct, were encouraged to vote against Clinton next year because of something that happened in 1988.) The network also selected questions in which an angry soldier asked Clinton why we should elect her president since Arab states dont respect women, and in which an average person asked her how she answers the claim that she isnt satisfactorily feminine. In the evenings third question, she was asked to define liberal. And she was asked if she thinks the word describes her.
In this case, per Icebergslim's definition, CNN "planted" several questions against Sen. Clinton and in favor of her opponents like Sen. Obama - any guesses about the number of Daily Kos diaries by Icebergslim or Sen. Clinton's other detractors with the headline "CNN = Not Clinton News Network" or "CNN = ONN = Obama News Network"? In fact, if anyone had not slept through the entire period starting, say, 1992, they would have bothered to notice that CNN is quite the opposite of Clinton News Network. Yet, we have alleged "progressives" rushing with glee to stenographically hype a major, false Republican talking point against the Clintons (i.e., CNN = Clinton News Network), not unlike the candidates whom they support. Not to mention, these are people who allegedly represent the ideals of the Democratic party and progressives - unlike the Evil DLC Monsters called the Clintons.
What is also revealing to me in this episode is how some detractors of Sen. Clinton don't mind it when Sen. Clinton is challenged by hostile crowds or questions, but when their candidates (e.g., Sen. Obama or Sen. Edwards) get booed, the debate moderators or the audience are the problem! This is also known as the Clinton Double-Standard = CDS. When Sen. Clinton elicited boos from the audience at Yearly Kos 2007 during the Democratic Presidential candidate debate/forum, that's no problem. But, if Sen. Edwards or Sen. Obama get booed, then the media is in the tank and the audience is made up of morons. Icebergslim was clearly perturbed about the boos against Sen. Edwards and Sen. Obama:
How CNN and moderator let those boos go, like business as usual...
And what was Icebergslim's view when Sen. Clinton was booed during the debate at Yearly Kos?
I was at Yearly Kos and sitting there with a table of Hillary supporters when she dropped that bombshell out of her mouth.
My reaction, stunned. Really. This is a woman who does not say those things in public. Even the supporters at the table were shocked. One stated, "How could she say that?" Well, she did and has no repercussions about it at all. That alone states volumes about Hillary Clinton.
In other words, no ranting about how the Yearly Kos moderator(s) let those boos against Sen. Clinton "go, like business as usual". Interestingly, the above comments were in a diary ironically titled:
Let's also not forget the audience! For that, we turn to the other relevant Daily Kos Recommended Diary:
This diary is by LV Pol Girl and she concluded as follows (emphasis mine):
The audience that were around me behaved like they were at a boxing match at Caesar's Palace, cheering for Hillary and booing her two closest opponents, John Edwards and Barack Obama. Real Democrats don't boo Democrats. Obama and Edwards looked like they backed off and just sat this one out, since they were not allowed to contrast themselves against Hillary. The audience members weren't informed, sophisticated Democrats, who could make their own decisions. They were followers who want to be in the lead. Our lousy Party leaders in this State, who could not win an election that the Democrats dominated in '06, are leading them.
I came out of the event solid Obama, loving Kucinich and respecting Edwards.
Real Democrats don't boo other Democrats? Does this mean the many attendees at Yearly Kos who booed Clinton are not real Democrats? More CDS at work.
Sen. Obama and Sen. Edwards were not allowed to contrast themselves against Hillary? Someone must have been watching a different debate, perhaps on Mars, than the one I watched here (on Earth) since they were most certainly allowed to contrast themselves repeatedly and effectively.
The audience members weren't informed, sophisticated Democrats? Wow! Au contraire, perhaps some of the audience was just tired of Sen. Edwards misleading the public by claiming Sen. Clinton was a corporate Democrat who was part of a corrupt cabal in DC, especially when his own record in Congress is not exactly very flattering in comparison. Or, maybe they were unhappy with his misleading the public by portraying Sen. Clinton as being equivalent to George Bush. Maybe some of them were just unhappy with Sen. Obama's recent history of falsely trashing Sen. Clinton's character - using false Republican talking points - especially when his positions don't differ substantively from hers. But, none of this could possibly be true according to the Straight-Talking Reality-BasedTM community. According to this community, the audience must have been a bunch of morons (who were just weird enough to also applaud Sen. Obama and Sen. Edwards on multiple occasions!).
P.S. I certainly do not approve of CNN using James Carville as a commentator on topics involving the Democratic Presidential campaign, especially without disclosing his support for or connection to the Clintons. That said, this doesn't make CNN the Clinton News Network except in the minds of those who have CDS.