How curious. Perhaps this is just another level of the "Rush Effect" on a Republican who would rather see Clinton vs McCain rather than Obama vs McCain in the GE.
Posted by cds at March 30, 2008 02:05 PMThe boys like Scaife like her because she's one of them. A managing partner-level corporate lawyer who's on the Wal Mart board. What's not to like? Not my side at all. they can have her. Next!
Posted by JohnShreffler at March 30, 2008 02:15 PMCareful eriposte! No lesser light than Mr. Anonymous, the Mighty Joe Klein hints that Hillary may not get the nod, after all. Some months ago, when John Edwards was still alive, I had a Dream.
Who knows, perhaps it's time for the A-Team. Gore/Clinton? Maybe?
Posted by DeminNewJ at March 30, 2008 02:15 PMHoly crap. You're comparing negotiating with a nation to avoid a war with sucking up to a rich man to avoid his badmouthing. And you somehow think that Scaife's favor is a good thing to progressives. In my dimension, that's the kiss of death.
Posted by Tim H. at March 30, 2008 02:32 PMNow if she was really smart, she would have brought George Soros to meet with Richard Mellon Scaife.
Posted by Seven of Six at March 30, 2008 03:26 PMeripostal,
you have crossed the line for sure...
now you are using that certifiable fascist Scaife as a character reference for Mrs. Clinton? What's next -'honorable mention' from Ken Starr?
DeminNJ: eriposte and Turkana have indeed "burned down the house". As far as Gore/Clinton - in your dreams! More drama .... plus Gore is done with the Clintons.
With this kind of "making nice" from Richard Mellon Scaife, I'm sure there's something nasty afoot. This is unreal. Something out of Orwell's 1984.
Has anyone forgotten who Scaife is? He's one of the movers and shakers behind the Mighty Wurlitzer. The Godfather of the monstrous Coulter, the evil that walks. I was worried before; but now the object of this convivial spirit is clear.
Someone doesn't want that nice black man to become president.
Posted by Copeland at March 30, 2008 04:07 PMHillary is doing what she needs to do to secure the nomination. Fortunately, what she needs to do now guarantees she loses in November.
Posted by Bagley at March 30, 2008 04:13 PMI think the point is that you can neutralize an opponent by engaging them. Hillary has been trashed by "progressives" because she has engaged with her enemies, like Murdoch and Scheif. If anyone has a right to address these "people" than she does. Think Nixon goes to China.
Isn't this what you are asking for? Obama want to reach across the isle and unite us. This is an example of what, when your ass has been there, what it takes. So who has proved that she or he has really dealt with their enemy? I'd say Hillary Clinton. Because she doesn't take all the sh8t personally. She looks ahead, to the bigger picture.
No TSL, this is not Nixon goes to China, this is your country goes fascist.
Posted by Copeland at March 30, 2008 04:32 PMWho would have ever expected it - Richard Mellon Scaife acting more civilized than Obama supporters. He dislikes Clinton's policies, but respects her personally. If Obama supporters could act the same way, they wouldn't alienate so many otherwise undecided voters.
Posted by jwrjr at March 30, 2008 04:35 PM"... this is your country goes fascist."
Your country?
Posted by Bagley at March 30, 2008 04:42 PMObamabots never fail to "misunderstand" any blog post that points out their own hypocrisy. It's like they don't know how to read. I'll have to use the internet crayon--OBAMA BRAGS THAT HE CAN APPEAL TO REPUBLICANS. Discuss.
Posted by cygnus at March 30, 2008 04:47 PMI say crap "Copeland".
In politics, no matter what the culture or country it is, it's all about power. She is negotiating with her enemies. You can not deny that. She has been hurt more than any politician by Scef or Murdoch. But she meet them on their ground. And she changed their mind. What more could you ask for from a leader?\
how you deal with Murdoch or Sceif is no different that Akderjinabad. You know that because you are an Obama fan.
I can't spell. So there!
This country has been moving incrementally, and constantly to the right, for decades. A deal has been cut. I, for one, wouldn't be surprised if a President Hillary Clinton attacked Iran, provided that Bush hasn't done so before he leaves office. Clinton is not negotiating with Scaife; they are scratching each other's backs. Or so it seems.
Posted by Copeland at March 30, 2008 05:07 PMCopeland,
Posted by Copeland at March 30, 2008 04:32 PM:
"... this is your country goes fascist."
Your country?
Posted by Copeland at March 30, 2008 05:07 PM:
"This country has been moving incrementally..."
This country?
Just how confused are you?
Posted by Bagley at March 30, 2008 05:29 PM" She is negotiating with her enemies. You can not deny that. She has been hurt more than any politician by Scef or Murdoch. But she meet them on their ground. And she changed their mind."
No. It's more like more like she sold her soul to the devil. Do you really think that SHE changed THEIR minds? Well then, I've got a bridge...
Eriposte:
With sincere respect, why do you persist in being so willfully obtuse? Your attempt to compare a meeting with Richard Scaife to a meeting with, say, Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (implied by your statement regarding "some of America's worst enemies and the worst dictators in the world") is simply fatuous in the extreme.
I have an extensive record of support for Bill and Hillary Clinton. I invite you to review my history of critical correspondence with the press, crafted not just on their behalf, but in the interest of intellectual credibility and in opposition to witch hunts and cynical smears.
http://www.wgn.net/~zick/screeds/jmsj/
Judge for your self the intensity of my passion, and the character of my sincerity and the quality of my reasoning.
And then please try and understand why I think you are being foolishly petulant and disingenuous, and doing harm to your own reputation.
I can only speak for myself, of course, but I consider Senator Clinton's visit with Scaife to be a personal denigration of my five years of vigorous efforts. She did not need to meet with Scaife personally, in the first place, and she did not meet with him to discuss their philosophical differences. She used the opportunity for personal self-serving political purposes to take a swipe at Senator Obama. That is not remotely parallel to appropriate behavior by a President meeting with foreign enemies (although it is typical behavior for George Bush).
No, Clinton simply adopted the attitude that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" notwithstanding the long history of scurrilous and harmful conduct of her new "friend." And she didn't confront Scaife with his history of malice, rather she preferred to cast aspersions on Obama, attributing guilt by association.
If I were to engage in the ridiculous hyperbole which you have been using to allege hypocrisy by "comparing"/"contrasting" behaviors by the Obama and Clinton campaigns, I could draw a tendentious parallel and say that Clinton mimics George Bush and the Republican Party in her behavior. But it would be terminally silly, and painfully obvious at that.
Perhaps you have convinced yourself that you are totally Right!, and that Clinton's critics are by definition therefore inevitably Wrong!. In the event, no amount of appeals to your capacity for logic and reason would be persuasive.
I don't ask that you cease to be a passionate advocate for Senator Clinton. Argue in her favor, if you must, and make your case. But you insult me personally by the tone of sweeping negative stereotyping you have adopted, by presuming that all criticism of Senator Clinton's campaign is somehow attributable virtually exclusively to Obama campaign hypocrisy.
I still prefer Edwards (even more I still prefer John Kerry). The Obama campaign does not speak for me. He wasn't my pick, but he has the de facto insurmountable lead for the nomination. No amount of wishful thinking and clapping for Tinkerbell can change that.
Please know that friends can disagree, and not always by definition be lying hypocrites. You keep making arguments that are beneath you.
Please, do your campaigning for Hillary, not against Obama. You do yourself a disservice.
Posted by bz at March 30, 2008 05:50 PMAnd yet, come the general election, Scaife will endorse McCain in a heartbeat. I think it's damn pretty sad that Clinton would suck up to Scaife, who's probably done more than anyone to bring down the House of Clinton, as opposed of giving him a well-deserved finger. Talk about embracing your abuser. It doesn't make her look strong; it makes her look pathetic.
Posted by mbtogut at March 30, 2008 06:25 PMYou Obama supporters do understand that Obama is meeting with the Tribune Review editorial board and Scaife as well?
Does that mean he's "not on my side at all, they can have him. Next."
or perhaps
"Holy crap. You're comparing negotiating with a nation to avoid a war with sucking up to a rich man to avoid his badmouthing. And you somehow think that Scaife's favor is a good thing to progressives. In my dimension, that's the kiss of death."
or maybe
"Obama is doing what he needs to do to secure the nomination. Fortunately, what he needs to do now guarantees he loses in November."
No, I know, this is what's going on:
"It's more like more like he sold his soul to the devil. "
Get a grip guys.
Posted by elmey at March 30, 2008 06:30 PMElmey you have no source to back up your lie that Obama will meet Scaife. Hillary's bowing to the enemy is a sign of desperation and she has lost her moral center.
Posted by a4L at March 30, 2008 08:33 PMSomeone doesn't want that nice black man to become president.
In true Obamabot fashion, you cry racism. That is just sad and pathetic.
Regardless of what anyone says, going into the lion's den (which is what she did since this man has ridiculed her FOR YEARS and is the "godfather" of the 'vast right wing conspiracy' hrc has often talked about). Therefore, the fact that meeting her may have changed his opinion of her IS SIGNIFICANT. Why? Because it's exactly what she did when she entered the senate to all those republicans who hated her when she was first lady. Once they actually got to know her, they realized that she wasn't the "evil" person they had created in their own heads. She did the same thing here in NY which is why she is well respected among NY Republican leaders as well as the Democratic ones. She also won the respect of the upstate republicans because she actually listened to what the farmers needed and worked to get their needs met.
The Far Left who HATE hrc for talking to people on the far right don't realize that if Obama becomes president HE WILL HAVE TO DO THAT AS WELL, and CONSISTENTLY. You don't just talk to people you like or who like you, when you're at this level of politics. You have to talk to those people who have influence. Scaife has great influence in PA. Obama is going to sit down with him too in the future. Are you going to criticize Obama then? In fact for every poster here who is criticizing her for meeting with Scaife, I expect a post for you as well criticizing Obama when he does it. Bc if you don't, then you will prove your own hypocrisy.
Posted by kacey at March 30, 2008 09:06 PMDeminNJ,
You know very well that I could care less what Joe Klein or any of the jokers in the media think. I personally believe, as I've said in one of my previous posts, that the path ahead is very difficult for Hillary but not impossible. She's facing a candidate who is far better funded and that is the biggest barrier for her to win - as is the case in almost every election I've witnessed.
However, what I thought before NH voted was that Hillary had no chance. Since then I've gotten even more respectful of voters.
As long as HRC's in the race I will continue to defend her from what I perceive to be unfair criticisms. The comment threads are for you folks to agree or disagree and I'll take the brickbats as they come, even from phidipides. :-)
Posted by eriposte at March 30, 2008 10:09 PMTim H,
You said: "You're comparing negotiating with a nation to avoid a war with sucking up to a rich man to avoid his badmouthing."
Um, no. I am talking about engaging with arch enemies to change the dynamic between you and the enemy.
You are free to portray HRC as "sucking up", but I obviously vehemently disagree. She didn't go there to tell Scaife she agrees with him. She went to answer questions from the PTR editorial board as a candidate and state her positions.
You said: "And you somehow think that Scaife's favor is a good thing to progressives"
Actually no. You somehow think that I somehow think that, but I don't. Scaife is a snake and he is unlikely to do progressives any favors. But it never hurts to try and educate people who may have wrong beliefs about you. Personal interactions make a huge difference in the way a person perceives another.
I must say that I am also tired of this selective outrage. Obama has given numerous interviews to the network that has done the most fraudulent and smear-filled reporting against HRC in this campaign - MSNBC. I could easily ask how in the world it is acceptable for him to engage them. Just be happy I'm not writing a post about it.
Posted by eriposte at March 30, 2008 10:15 PMBZ,
You are making several statements that are based entirely on your opinion and no evidence is provided to back it up.
You say: "but I consider Senator Clinton's visit with Scaife to be a personal denigration of my five years of vigorous efforts."
Just as I could easily consider Sen. Obama's courting of the utterly despicable frauds in the media - especially at MSNBC but also other outlets (like Maureen Down in the NYT and several others) - who did equal and in some cases worse damage to the Clintons over the past 15 years a "personal denigration" of several years of my own efforts. But unlike you, I am not going to sit here and have the vapors over this because we are in the middle of a campaign and both candidates are forced to talk to the media and give interviews from time to time.
You say: "She did not need to meet with Scaife personally, in the first place"
And I presume you had ESP where she telegraphed to you personally that she went there to specifically meet him personally? Are you willing to entertain the possibility that she was talking to the P-T-R's editorial board and the owner showed up and she had no control over that? Give me a break.
You said: "she did not meet with him to discuss their philosophical differences. She used the opportunity for personal self-serving political purposes to take a swipe at Senator Obama."
This is the most ridiculous comment I've seen. Of course, she's meeting editorial boards during a *Presidential primary campaign* for political reasons just like Sen. Obama is doing. He isn't meeting editorial boards to chit chat about matters unrelated to politics. As for the "swipe" at Sen. Obama, this is absurdly ridiculous. When editors ask you to say why you are different from your opponent, there will be "swipes". If your reference is to her discussion of Wright, give me a break. Clinton said nothing about Obama and Wright until the Obama campaign, in the worst political judgement I've seen in any candidate, sent a picture of Wright and Bill Clinton to the press. Do you honestly think HRC had no right at that point to distance herself from Wright? If so, give me a blooming break.
I appreciate your hard work in the 1990s, but I wasn't born yesterday either.
Posted by eriposte at March 30, 2008 10:27 PMEriposte:
Your complaint that I offered only my "opinion and no evidence is provided to back it up" is similarly an expression only of your opinion, with no evidence to back it up. By that, I mean you provided no lengthy time-consuming individual point-by-point rebuttal to every single component of my statements and included no volume of evidentiary substance to support your contention, in the very same way I failed to so do. Of course, it's silly to even say that, because this is a comment thread, not a formal debate. But we could go back and forth like that forever if that's the intellectual level of your preferred playing field.
Of course what I said is "just" my opinion. And your opinion is equally just an opinion too. I had hoped you might possibly give some measure of weight to my current perspective because I had provided specific volumes of documentary substance in support of my claim to have been a steadfast supporter of the Clintons, the idea being that you would not just presume me automatically to be a "hypocrite" and "Obamabot" and therefore deserving of your kneejerk opprobrium. Alas, perhaps I should have known better.
I oppose Hillary Clinton for President for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with anything said by the Obama campaign. I've opposed her from the start of the campaign season. I'd have held my nose and voted for her in the general if she had won the nomination. But she didn't. And it's abundantly clear that she won't. (As I previously noted, you can keep clapping for Tinkerbelle, but it still ain't gonna happen. I had no ESP, but I knew the Iraq war would be a monster fuck up too. Some things are just profoundly self-evident.)
I don't even mind her continuing campaign. I just wish she'd run a better one. One wherein she didn't cozy up to people like Richard Melon Scaife, and wherein she attributes guilt by association to a cherry picked statement coming out of somebody else's mouth. It ain't working for her.
Your attempt to "compare" Maureen Dowd - as profoundly lame as she is - to Scaife is just another quite incredibly feeble and ludicrous parallel. Dowd didn't pour millions of her own personal dollars into a multi-year witch hunt; I don't believe Dowd or anyone at MSNBC has ever accused Barack Obama of murdering anybody the way Scaife and his hirelings accused Hillary Clinton of murdering Vince Foster. It's your repeated efforts to construct invalid comparisons such as that which only serve to further delegitimize your reasoning in general.
And no, I cannot claim to have ESP, but do you really believe she went to speak with that particular editorial board without knowing who would be present? Care to buy a bridge or some swampland?
As for "the vapors" it is defined in the dictionary ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vapors ) - in the metaphorical sense with which you have used the term - as a reference, essentially, either to verbal farting or demonstration of hysteria (I wasn't sure if you intended to assign one or the other to me, or perhaps both variants in meaning).
But despite your assertion, it appears you are indeed "sit[ing] here and hav[ing] the vapors over this" (in both senses of aforesaid dictionary meaning). You are to be sure displaying a degree of hysteria, and the character of (some of) your verbiage can quite easily be said to evince the odor of flatulence. That, too, is just an opinion, of course.
The point is that you are not doing yourself or Hillary Clinton any favors by such patently silly comparisons as equating Dowd to Scaife. And you further erode your capacity for persuasion by so willfully turning a blind eye to the terminal cynicism demonstrated in her embrace of Scaife.
Despite my comments, I regard you as a friend. I wouldn't bother writing otherwise. I simply hoped you might possibly see that not everyone opposed to Clinton is taking marching orders from Team Obama, that she's earned plenty of opposition from elsewhere. And that is why she has lost the nomination.
I appear to have failed in my attempt. I'm pretty sure we'll both get over it eventually.
Posted by bz at March 31, 2008 01:02 AM
The Obama groupies would be praising their guy to the hilt for "opening up" to the other side. They would praise his sense of "unity". If he had done it first. Now he may well be compelled to meet with Scaife himself.
So if and when Obama meets with Scaife, he will just be trying cut losses.
The intellectual dishonesty of Obama groupies never ceases to amaze.
Posted by bernarda at March 31, 2008 06:28 AMThis is *NOT* a surprise. Scaithe has been publically anti-Bush for quite a while, and has somewhat repented for his anti-Clinton actions during the 1990s.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010771.php
"Clinton wasn't such a bad president," Mr. Ruddy said. "In fact, he was a pretty good president in a lot of ways, and Dick feels that way today."
And:
http://www.bestoftheblogs.com/2007/07/18/everybodys-getting-into-the-act/
There is nothing surprising about Scaithe warming up to Hillary (following in Rupert Murdoch's footsteps, no doubt).
Posted by Ren at March 31, 2008 12:01 PMAs I previously noted, you can keep clapping for Tinkerbelle, but it still ain't gonna happen.
Misogyny at its best. Thank you once again, for proving that "progressives" are as neanderthalic in their thinking process as everyone else. I don't know why I continue to expect better. Wishful thinking, I guess.
Posted by kacey at March 31, 2008 01:54 PMI am so proud of Hillary Clinton for walking into the lion's den. This man worked overtime for years to destroy her husband, but she did what she had to do because she is a tough, smart, uniquely qualified candidate for President of the United States. I watched the videos of the meeting, and Hillary is brilliant. She actually WON OVER the man who thought he was her worst enemy. How's that for unity, hope and change? I just sent a contribution to her campaign. Go Hillary!
Posted by Palomino at March 31, 2008 07:23 PMEri nice try. She had no choice you are right... in the context of votes. Sorry votes v the potential for a pviotal conflict/global crisis that could been prevented by actually using the diplomatic instrument of power? Give me a break. Yes Obama and if elected HRC need to talk to government heads that incur our distaste (say liek Saudi Arabia, China Russia, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Indonesia funny when you put them all together how different a picture it paints) but a worthless cartoon figure local Newspaper baron that falsely accused her of involvement in murder? What for? Votes? So yes I stand by original post she talked to a monster for a reason so tenuous its laughable. By the way I will vote democrat. Oh unless CDS is chronic dissembling syndrome (my really bad guess)then you got me I have no clue on that one!
Posted by jesse at April 4, 2008 02:56 PM