Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  3 4 5 6 7  Next ›  Last »  (10 total)
03:55 AM on 11/01/2007
Realblackgirl -

you said

'To be honest Tim Russert had an all white women panel last Sunday just to discuss the challenges Hillary faces as a woman.

"Has anyone given the same attention to Obama? He doesn't fit the archetype our society has for Black men. He is not a preacher, rapper, athlete, thug or apologist for his community. He is regularly compared to Osama because in 2007 the nation is not culturally proficient enough to not confuse the two. He had secret service protection before anyone else. Yet, he is up there working within a system that is not ready for his candidacy nor his political paradigm..."

All excellent points, and well said. You should have left it at that.

Anyone who follows Taylor Marsh knows that this post does not represent whining from Hillary. When Hillary has something to say, she doesn't send out minions (except maybe her husband.)

Hillary does her own talking. And no one has caught her whining yet. I doubt they will. Hillary and Obama don't whine.
03:10 AM on 11/01/2007
Tim Russert is an untalented teevee personality with a over-reliance upon "gotcha" politics for ratings.

Of the two most memorable questions (NY driver's license and national archives policies), Senator Clinton has no responsibility for either of them...something which she rightly could have pointed out, but instead, like a reasonable person (or an exasperated parent), she simply attempted to answer the irrelevant, unreasonable and childish questions.

She was clearly one of the few ADULTS in the room. Well Done Senator Clinton!
03:04 AM on 11/01/2007
All Russert and the boys did was put HRC on camera and challenge her to be honest for the first time in her life but she failed the test. She wants the presidency but hides the records that speak to her experience. She tried to do the makerena dance about everything but she just doesn't have it. As for Richardson, he came off as a baffoon. He knew he stood no chance and was now seeking a way back into the Clinton camp; he probably got a call earler from his former boss. His goose is done. As for the cry of sexism, it is pure bool. HRC was exposed as a phoney, pure and simple. She lies well but she is not Bill. Bill smioles and wags the fingure to make it believeable.
photo
ElkoJohn
left-wing populist
02:54 AM on 11/01/2007
Tim is all about Tim, & he likes to play gotcha to feed his big ego... now as far as Billary is concerned, when s/he gets into office, I hope s/he rises to the occasion & becomes a great leader of the not-so-free world. And I hope s/he sends Bush et al. to the Hague to be tried for war crimes... BUT, if she's as bad as the Hate-Hill bloggers say, oh well, just another day in the good ole usa.
02:54 AM on 11/01/2007
NOT A DEBATE FAN BUT IF YOU 'RE GONNA PARTICIPATE YOU CAN'T GET MAD IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE QUESTIONS. SHE SHOULD STOP STRADDLING THE FENCE
02:40 AM on 11/01/2007
Taylor, I totally agree. Hillary isn't my favorite candidate, but she didn't deserve what she got at this supposed "debate." Nor were the rest of the candidates served by this charade. These past 7 years, I've gotten sicker and sicker at the total sellout of the MSM and what total right-wing nut jobs most of them have become. Isn't there one good journalist out there somewhere? Have we really come to this?
02:17 AM on 11/01/2007
What a bunch of rubbish...Hillary being a women doesn't excuse her flip flopping, her selling out to big money and her complete lack of integrity.
I don't care about a persons race, sex, etc when voting for a candidate but I do expect them to be honest and to protect the Constitution and the prosperity of the American people before there own interests and that of their corporate masters.
02:11 AM on 11/01/2007
I wish the traditional media would start playing hard ball with all politicians and public employees.
Hillary has no inyegrity and will do whatever is best for Hillary and for her big money masters.
Hillary is the other side of the Bush coin.
She will not restore the Constitution, will continue to destroy American Freedom and prosperity and will sell the media, public lands etc to the highest bidder.
If you want business as usual in Washington vote for the sold out corporate shill...Hillary Clinton.
If you want integrity vote Kucinich or Paul.
Dodd and Edwards are the next two who have some integrity, though Dodd takes lots of hedge fund money .
01:32 AM on 11/01/2007
Right you are, Taylor Marsh. Here's some more evidence for your argument (as if more were needed) from my post at the Guardian, which, before the editors got at me, I called "Big Russ and Her." http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/linda_hirshman/2007/10/tim_russert_vs_hillary_clinton.html.
01:20 AM on 11/01/2007
Russert revealed what many have suspected about Hillary for a long time. She's not as natural a liar as Bill, and has therefore been caught trying to be everything to everyone. All politicians pull this crap for votes or money, but some are just more brazen than others. She's in way over her head and time will bear this out more as the election looms closer. Interests groups (like the immigration lobby in the case of the Spitzer/driver's license debacle), are poisoning the discussion. Repeal/Modify McCain/Feingold.
12:58 AM on 11/01/2007
Before I comment on Russert:

I want to be for Hillary, but can’t.

I’m also not for Obama, who’s smart, but inexperienced. Meanwhile, the rest, less for Edwards, get no media play.

Which brings me back to Hillary verses the rest of the pack. There are four candidates with the experience to be president: Hillary, Dodd, Biden and Kucinich. (Edwards is too ambitious relative to his lack of experience, which is barely more than Obama’s.) Each of the four has the gravitas and experience to be president.

While Hillary’s debate performances have blown me away, her ambitions trumps good policy. She voted for the Iran resolution because she wants to look tough for the general election, despite the risks that vote presents during the next 15 months. At a time when the public is ready for drastic change, she sold out to the insurance and medical communities. She is not the woman she appeared to be during her husband’s first term. She’s gone native.

So was Russert wrong in going after her? She is leading by wide margins primarily because of name recognition. Her foreign policy experience is dwarfed by Biden’s. Her domestic experience is dwarfed by Dodd’s. And her conviction of principle is overshadowed by Kucinich. Yet she is getting the Democrat version of Bush’s 2000 free ride, which was likewise driven by party nepotism.

While he was extremely tough on her, it may be that Russert took away from 2000 a necessary lesson for all the press: do not let the rest of the press and the party elite crown the victor until the victor has proven themselves. Tough, driving questions will not break a quality candidate. It will make them stronger.
12:58 AM on 11/01/2007
Wow... politics unfair? I'm shocked.

Wow... a frontrunner under attack? I'm shocked.

Wow... Tim Russert asking stupid questions? I'm shocked...

...shocked, I tell ya.

I have to say that I am sick of the term "sexist" being used whenever Hillary comes under fire. Every time somebody yells "sexist" when women receive the same (bad, unfair) treatment that so many men have experienced in the past, it undermines the very women they are trying to defend. It's not sexism - it's life. Politics is a rough and tumble business, and women in politics are not helped when people scream "sexist!".
12:56 AM on 11/01/2007
Guess what? Last night was a DEBATE. Right? Did you expect Tim Russert to ask soft questions or hard questions? Tim Russert and Chris Matthews have been covering politics for the last 30 years and they have probably seen and interviewed every candidate for President since then.

Rembember Bill Clinton back in 1996 campaigning in his second term as President using the "trianglation" method by his former campaign advisor Dick Morris? Do you also remember how the Rupublicans gained a majority in Congress under his administration mostly because of the failure of Hillary Clinton's "health care" plan? And you wonder how Republicans are "so fascinated" by her?

If you believe Hillary is a tough as she says she is then why complain about the "pile-on-politics"? She is running for President of the U.S States not counsel woman. My question to you if you are a Clinton supporter is if Tim Russert is asking the hard questions, how come you can't do the same?
12:20 AM on 11/01/2007
As a woman, I am completely offended by this post. Do you remember Howard Dean and how other candidates went after him? Do you remember media going after Dean? Hillary is targeted because she is leading the polls, pure and simple. There is nothing sexist about this. Stop turning Hillary's campaign into a vapid, teary, emotional, why men hate me? idiotic campaign!
12:19 AM on 11/01/2007
This post is why blogging has become a vital part of truth in politics at this time in our history. Taylor Marsh's input was timely and backed by numbers which provided a clear picture of Tim Russert's intentions. It is not the first time for this guy. What is it with him and Chris Matthews obsession with the Clintons. A pair of ego driven windbags with a microphone, researchers and a childlike but venemous need for attention.I do not watch either of those two on television but do watch the NBC nightly news. My problem at this time is whether Brian Williams, who I respect, was complicit in this planned attack on Senator Clinton. I hope not but it's obvious the well at that network needs draining.

Jim Hurley