The Vanity Fair piece reminded me of something: During the 1999 election run, Bush didn't know that Social Security was a Federal Program. Ahhhh, what a moron. The perfect storm of stupidity and lack of curiosity.
Posted by phidipides at September 4, 2007 11:28 AMThis narrative drove me crazy in the last 2 elections. Sure, if you force someone to answer the question, they'll go with the more personable (perceived) candidate, but has someone done a specific poll to see how important this quality is in a candidate? I don't want someone like my neighbor, a regular shmoe, I want someone exceptional as President.
It also goes with the supposed need of voters to actually see the candidates up close campaigning in their hometowns. I probably have not been within 100 miles of a presidential candidate but have voted with conviction in every election since 1984. Has someone polled on this question?
Posted by RollaMO at September 4, 2007 11:33 AMI doubt that Hillary or Obama would let the media get away with it what they did to Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004.
Prolly 'cos the one being "Gored" this time around is Edwards, and that suits them just fine.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 4, 2007 11:34 AMI'm wondering if you were allowed to answer, "This is the stupidest poll question ever."
For the record, I'd ride with Obama. Or Elizabeth Edwards. Or Bill C. What that has to do with voting for President, I don't know.
Posted by BlueMan at September 4, 2007 11:35 AMHow come no one remembers Rudy backing out of the Senat run against Hillary?
Posted by heathwood at September 4, 2007 12:15 PMGood question, heathwood. I'm sure that story will be revisited in the near future.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at September 4, 2007 12:20 PMI can't believe this poll question. How stupid is this?
As long as the person wasn't Republican and he/she was paying all expenses, it wouldn't matter much, I suppose. As long as they were forthright, they'd all have good stories to tell. I wonder which one would wanna listen to rock radio stations and eat something other than fast food the whole trip.
No, here's my answer: I'd wanna go with Hillary, make her listen to all 20-something Grateful Dead concerts I have on cd, smoke a little ditchweed, and get her telling me some good college stories and about life in the White House. I'd promise not to tell her Fellowship buddies anything about the trip.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at September 4, 2007 01:08 PMIt's gotten to the point where we should question supporting any candidate that the MSM doesn't trash or the one the MSM treats more favorably. As for Obama or Hillary being able to successful deflect such criticism, wouldn't count on it. (Although I doubt they will ever seriously go after Hillary. Murdoch has already indicated that he could live (work?) with her as POTUS.
Posted by Marie at September 4, 2007 01:26 PMiamcoyote: Prolly 'cos the one being "Gored" this time around is Edwards, and that suits them just fine.
yep, and before that it was Gore and Dean, the korporate media want to decide who you can vote for
Posted by gay veteran at September 4, 2007 02:56 PMIf the corporate media gets their weay and anyone like Edwards who represents true reform is no longer a threat to really win the White House, the "Goreing" of Hillary will begin, count on it.
Posted by herbal tee at September 4, 2007 03:07 PMOn the tombstone of the Republic will be the epitaph 'Killed by a Story Arc'.
Posted by Davis X. Machina at September 4, 2007 04:01 PMBob Somerby (The Daily Howler) documents daily the proclivity of the corporate media to establish narratives that denigrate Democrats. And promote Republicans.
The Vanity Fair article scratches the surface of their malfeasance. Somerby began his efforts as this behavior first started to manifest itself in 1999, and continues to document this behavior up to, and including, today.
I suggest that anyone not familiar with his site use the Google (The Daily Howler) and spend a few hours catching up on the obscenity we call the Main Stream Media.
I remembered seeing some so called liberal pundits agreeing to the demonizing of Al Gore back in 2000. Describing him as stiff and focusing on his breathing during a debate instead of the issues. Now some in the media (especially, Tim Russert, Chris Mathews and Wolf Blitzer) are doing the same hatch job by talking up Giuliani as a hero and attacking Hillary as stiff trying to drag her negative up, while pretending that they are for Obama at the same time asking if Obama is black enough trying to use his race against him.
They are happy to trash Bill Clinton’s misdeed while Giuliani failure as a father and his fake 911 heroism is off limit.
No matter whom any of us democrats are supporting during the primary, we need to stop agreeing with those media elites with hidden agenda when they demonize any of our candidates, also, we should engage in a constructive criticism when and if we need to criticise one of our own. Thank you.
Steve, I think you nailed this one. Giuliani was supposed to win. My guess Hillary was supposed to be the nagging, back seat driver. No one was supposed to want to cruise with her. Well, they were wrong. For the record, I'd drive with Hillary.
Posted by Melanie at September 5, 2007 06:09 AMWhat would be the over/under on how many times Rudy would say, "9/11" on a cross country trip? 100? 150?
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at September 5, 2007 08:13 AMGreat commentary -- thanks!
I want to agree with the poster who said that Democrats end up doing some of the "goring" themselves, by repeating whatever the MSM decides the "narrative" is.
Gore actually did basically create the internet for those outside of the military, yet Gore's amazing foresight regarding the possibities of the internet became something no Democrat could possibly brag about.
I believe any Democratic Presidential candidate will beat any Republican candidate easily. I support Hillary Clinton in the primary, but I will PROUDLY support any Democrat after that.
I don't mind if people don't embrace Clinton's healthcare plan as much as Edwards' healthcare plan, because I like Edwards' plan better myself. But the point we really need to make overall is that, if it weren't for DEMOCRATS, the Republican candidates wouldn't be talking about healthcare at all.
p.s. For example, the Democrats did NOT lose in 1994 because of "HillaryCare." The Democrats lost in 1994 because they were caught up in a check-kiting scheme right before the 1994 elections.
See how it works? Democrats can't say anything about healthcare after 1994 because Hillary already "failed" -- even though no one failed, except the Democrats who were run out of office for check-kiting in 1994.
But what Democrat was going to pipe up and say, "We didn't lose because of healthcare. We lost because we're a bunch of check-kiters."
Always remember Rove's theory of winning elections -- attack the opponent's STRENGTHS.
Gore's strength was his ability to see into the future clearly, a true Progressive.
Kerry's was his Silver Star for military bravery, a true Commander-in-Chief.
See how it works?
Please try your hardest not to repeat baloney about other Democrats, but instead remember that we are all PARTS of ONE team.
Go TEAM!
Excellent commentary. Despite 15 years of attacks by the Rightwing Media people seem to like Hillary Clinton, surprise, surprise. I watch crowds at Hillary's events and its the men who are the most excited. What she brings is a realistic approach to problem solving, which works on us because these are solutions we have thought of ourselves while we are talking back to the TV. Get our troops safely out of Iraq, YEAH Work with all parties to get Universal Healthcare for all Americans, OK Put people in government positions who actually know how to do their jobs--DUH MAKES SENSE TO ME. To think if she is President I don't have to yell at the TV -- she will hear me.
Posted by s hall at September 6, 2007 11:27 AM