"Clinton Rules". Take heed, Obama supporters. You could be next.

Lost amid the faint criticism Paul Krugman made of Obama's health care plan in his op-ed today (and the requisite denunciation of his mental abilities), is Krugman's main point: his very salient comment of how the media vilify the Clintons. And how Team Obama is glomming on, even leading the nasty smears. Just this weekend, one of our well-respected DU posters charged Hillary of using Nixonian tactics in trying to control the media - just because she expressed her outrage at being accused of "pimping" her daughter. And she went further: she asked MSNBC to look at it's pattern of coverage of her and her family. Nixonian? Hardly. What's being done to the Clintons by the Rethugs and the media? Now that's Nixonian.

Just days ago, Chris Matthews was FORCED to apologize on air for comments he made about Hillary and how she won her Senate seat. How often have we at DU raged at Tweety, and Morning Blow, and Tucker, et al, over their unfairness toward the Clintons - and MOST Democrats??

That's Krugman's warning. What they're doing to Hillary now, they did to Gore, and Kerry. And I know Obama has a lot of people in his thrall right now - including the media - but really: do you think he's going to get a free pass, if he becomes the nominee?

Democrats - we're in this foxhole together. Get off the Hillary villification train now. The "Clinton Rules" could be coming soon - to a candidate near you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?ref=opinion

<snip>

What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.

The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a multiyear, multimillion-dollar investigation, which never found any evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons’ part, yet the “scandal” became a symbol of the Clinton administration’s alleged corruption.

During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.

And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do — asked, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network.

I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws.

For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact. For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November. For another, if history is any guide, if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, he will quickly find himself being subjected to Clinton rules. Democrats always do.

<snip>

NEVER, I tellsya, NEVER!

this thread!

No on is deluded enough to think that the Rs are going to just play nice with Obama if he is nominee ... I mean, as is, there are the underlying Muslim and won't pledge allegience rural legends ...

But, Hill is another thing ... Look, she would functionally make a really good president, no doubt ...

But, the right wing has a viceral hatred of her that goes beyond any measure ... Their hearts, what little they have to begin with, are so scared over from 15 years of partisan and mysognitic rage toward her that they have zero ... ZERO capacity to function with any level of reason in relation to her ...

It goes behond Gore, it goes beyond Kerry ... Gore and Kerry were just geeks that they threw crape at ... Hill is, literally, the antichrist to these people ...

Her nomination would be the bloodiest campaign in our lifetimes, and her presidency would be nonstop BS ...

Again, not saying they are going to be love Obama ... But, he offers a lot better chance to have SOME level of reason interjected into the the give and take of political processes if he president ...

think that he's just such a good candidate, he is "playing the media. You know, like Bush was a so much better candidate than Gore or Kerry...

think that he's just such a good candidate, he is "playing the media. You know, like Bush was a so much better candidate than Gore or Kerry...

think that he's just such a good candidate, he is "playing the media. You know, like Bush was a so much better candidate than Gore or Kerry...

I don't won't to be disrespectful, but where have you been for the last 4-5 decades?



Gore & Kerry were not Geeks. They got steamrolled by the Republican Machine/Media and when they actually did win the presidency, it was stolen from them.

The Republicans win regardless of what they have to do.



"CLINTON" The only Democratic name to win two terms since FDR.




You have to know your enemy to fight him and Obama is clueless........for now.
If he's the nomineee, the political & media landscape will change so quickly, he won't know what hit him.

Hillary expects it and is ready.

why so many think that Obama is 'clueless' about tactics used to destroy someone's person, and career. Do you really think it's been a cake-walk for him to get where he is today? Do you think this primary season is the first time he has had to deal with the Osama/Obama shit? I think some do not understand that he is not a 'fortunate son'. I also don't understand why people assume that the American population which is participating in record numbers would fall for the same old stuff. There is undoubtedly a segment of the population here, as well as out there, that revel in this shit. And I understand the deep seeded fear, that promotes such virulent, caustic, language. While it may be prevalent here, I think that kind of sentiment remains only with the dying breed and some of their offspring.

As soon as they believe he may be a force to be reckoned with, Barack Obama will be attacked on every side.

Right now, the worst of the RW blogosphere is busy posting about "Islamofascism." You've already seen the hints of what's to come. Just wait.

You're dreaming of a better land, Cosmocat. No one has been a more stellar candidate than Gore in terms of qualifications in recent history. They twisted every single thing he said. They amplified the horror of his sighs in one debate. THEY LIED ABOUT HIM.

Carter, the Iran/Contra scandal. Blatant manipulation of the hostages for political gain by Reagan, and the press played along. I knew then it was over for America as far as the press dealing honestly with the public was concerned.

Barack has been pretty good about covering his tracks, but he's made mistakes, and he's said things that could be construed as horrid faults. Last night I was watching a video from Good Magazine, they have one for each candidate. It shows that Barack is willing to sit down and negotiate with Fidel and Hugo. Oh. my. God. Can you say "fair game"? I know I can.

edit/delete redundancy

And since the rules are in fact made after Clinton, it is only logical that she be subject to the rules in it's entirety. :shrug:

After the Nixon debacle, GO-ers purchased the media and started using it as a weapon. More and more and more. By the time Clinton came to power, the weapon was sharper than during Carter - but prior elections cycles were quite telling as well as far as coverage went. Ted Kopper counting the days hostages were not freed - a boon to Raygun (while Poppy was dealing with Iran to keep them in until the election)

but we face the same situation the repukes face: Too much is at stake to pout about 'losing the nomination' when November rolls around. You are right on target. The RW will unleash their 'nucular' attack this time around...2004 will look like the practice session it probably was. While we think we have the GOP where we want them...just maybe they have US where they want us. Support your candidate, but get yourself ready for Fall and the battles ahead.

no, that is routinely a direct quote from people. I tend to take people at their word, if they say "I can't vote for Hillary" I tend to believe them. if they choose to compare Hillary to Bush, then I kinda of think it's unlikely that they will put a lot of effort into her campaign in the fall, huh?

How can one feign outrages at such slips of the tongue when she's made enough (worse) of her own and there are so many real issues at stake.

no, playing the victim (unwittingly or not) is not going to work anymore.

she's the one that was on the attack, even if now repentent and for a bit trying not to.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4511479&mesg_id=4512357

and Obama supporters' answers to why os the GOP media supporting Obama:


MSM is after a good story (unseating of inevitable choice)
MSM is actually impressed with Obama
MSM wants to kiss ass of the next president
MSM - they're human! maybe they want to stop being evil already
Both parties do it
They hate Clinton
Ted Kennedy!
Who cares what they're doing?
It's not true - what planet are you getting your news from?

some DUers have for both Clintons, but the reaction to Schuster's suspension was a real eye opener for me. I don't know how DU came together after 04, but this primary battle has changed my opinion of quite a few posters, and I'm afraid that that feeling isn't going to go away any time soon.

Obama's riding the wave of an extremely favorable media bias now, but that won't last if he makes it to the GE.

want to leave the place.
Only some of Schuster's defenders this time, were people I really respected, people I thought stood for the truth. Instead they proved partisan hacks - with no principles - and I feel quite out of place here.(have been since the attacks on Gravel - not the fact that he didn't have supporters, nut the freeperish mockery at his running).
I never bought into the faux studies meant to prove that liberals were smarter or psychologically healthier than the wingnuts.
After what I witnessed here this season I concluded that by en large, all people are the same. Give a bunch of them - picked at random - the illusion they are better than the others - and you get obnoxious hooligans praying on the others.
But having seen "The Wave"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wave_(book)
I shouldn't be surprised. It's in all of us.

to see some DUers that you've respected in the past, stoop so low now. I never expected it, and honestly, I won't forget it when all this is over.

The anti-Clinton, Right Wing style vitriol has been going on for a lot longer than that, well before the primaries started. It's firmly ingrained here now, unfortunately.

How's it goin, btw, seasonedblue :)

I won't even begin to mention the crap they could and would throw at Obama. The worst part is that because Hillary's taking all of the fire now, Obama's campaign will not be ready for the onslaught of @#$% once it starts flying. I believe both candidates should arm themselves to the teeth for battle royal, now, today, this instant. We are already behind in their playbook.

We need to recognize that, understand it, and act accordingly. There should be NO GLEE when any of our Dems are attacked by the machine.

Then come back and post your snarky response again.

I've been watching this crap against our candidates since Reagan/Carter. It gets worse every year. Obama. is. not. insulated.

Or is their brand of smear tactics acceptable somehow?

nice piece. Thanks for posting

The repigs start chanting... "A vote for Obama is a vote for (someone who rhymes with Obama)."

Mark my words. They are going to do it. And if you don't believe me, I've got some lovely swampland that I'd love to show you...

Barack Hussien Obama - only in office since 2005, missed one-third of the votes, ties to Rezco, muslim father nonsense, doesn't say the POA or wear the flag on his lapel, his national security credentials are the fact that he was not in the senate when IWR was voted on and doesn't matter b/c he probably wouldn't have been "present" when it was voted on... no economic experience... no accomplishments.... and let's add the part about Michelle saying he smells in the morning... wow!

Thanks for pointing out that the substance of the Krugman article was "Nixonland" and "Clinton rules." The focus of so many on "cult of personality" is a joke. Krugman's "I won't try for fake evenhandedness" is a disappointing poor choice of words- and something else to latch on to for people who want to avoid dealing with the real thrust of the column.

Krugman's remarks concerning Clinton's and Obama's health plans is a summary of a subject which he has dealt with frequently and extensively. He preferred Edwards' plan to either.

If Obama is nominated (I personally have just about given up on Edwards for this election...) his supporters better develop a much thicker skin in a hurry. "Liberal media" is MSM's big lie self-portrait. Ten seconds after he is nominated the media will suddenly discover that Obama IS BLACK- and not one of the Irish O'Bama's like they currently seem to believe. MSM will spend inordinate amounts of time "reporting" that there really is no proof of "all the stories of Obama and WHITE GIRLS during his self-admitted pot-smoking days." People who CAN'T HEAR THEIR TELEVISION will believe that Obama's running mate is either Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson...

I'M GOING TO RUN OFF AND JOIN THE CAPS LOCK CULT NOW...