Pundit Elite Enraptured by Hillary's "Flawless Campaign"

The satirical video short "Harlan McCraney, Presidential Speechalist" offers a comedic explanation of why George W. Bush comes off to many Americans as an inarticulate, even stupid politician. It's intentional: There's "a genius behind the stupidity" - speechalist McCraney (played by Andy Dick), a consultant who coaches Bush to come off as a misspoken, folksy everyman.

So while many of us see an ill-equipped president not up to the job, there's McCraney, off-stage, exclaiming "Yes!" and pumping his fist in victory as Bush mangles the "Fool Me Once" aphorism.

A similar dichotomy exists as many of us watch Hillary Clinton in TV interviews or Democratic debates. We see a politician vacillating to the point of self-parody, talking out of both sides of her mouth on issue after issue. "Her flat, monotonic voice lays out yards of opaque white gauze," observed Barbara Ehrenreich. "Where does she stand? Over here, and a little to the side, and maybe a few steps to the right."

But that's not how elite pundits see it. Powerful media voices praise a "flawless campaign" and declare that Clinton has "won every debate." They enthuse that she's "never off-message" and "doesn't make mistakes."

I imagine a bunch of Harlan McCraneys in the Clinton campaign, scripting her long-winded non-responses to please first and foremost the D.C. political press corps - with enough doubletalk to avoid offending the Democratic Party base.

Democratic activists who want their party to forthrightly move the country toward peace and justice may be frustrated by Clinton's mumbo jumbo and non-answer answers, but the privileged, unelected (never term-limited) punditocracy finds those same answers to be brilliant.

The reality is that Clinton and the pundit clique (with a spectrum from conservative Republican to conservative Democrat, from GE to GM) are largely in sync in holding positions that are not only unpopular among Democrats, but unpopular among the public at large.

To obscure this reality, Clinton keeps issuing doubletalk, and corporate media keep cheering.

Beltway pundits know that most of our country wants out of Iraq, and they seem to like it when Clinton offers the antiwar base rhetorical teases ("If we in Congress don't end this war by January 2009, as President, I will!") - while the laptop warriors in the media know damn well she'll prolong for years an occupation that none of their kids are dying in.

National pundits - whose jobs can't be outsourced overseas - know that most of the public opposes corporate-written trade deals like NAFTA. They like it when Clinton deftly implies she may change course ("I believe in pro-American trade") - knowing full well that Clinton and her corporate backers are as blindly worshipful of "free trade" as they in the national press corps.

Polls show that most Americans want government-provided national health insurance. Pundits applaud Clinton's cautious talk of incremental healthcare reform that keeps big bureaucratic private insurance firms at the center of the system, a status quo that will never work for most Americans but suits the well-insured pundit elite just fine.

I know a bit about mainstream punditry, having been a talking head on cable news for years until I was muzzled on the eve of the Iraq War. While millions of Americans vocally opposed an invasion of Iraq, the few TV voices who supported those millions were marginalized or silenced. I spoke for a majority of Americans when I advocated national health insurance and opposed corporate trade deals - but within the pundit club, I was a fringe minority.

Given the conservative tilt of the punditocracy, it doesn't surprise me that many in the media are seeking to anoint Clinton as the Democratic nominee, or that they (including at Fox News) tend to side with her in disputes with Edwards or Obama.

I'm old enough to remember that while corporate media exploited and savaged (perhaps partly in envy) Bill Clinton's sexual misbehavior, they liked most of his appointees and policies -- especially his corporate-oriented "New Democratic" approach to economics.

It will be up to grassroots Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire and other early states - not the 40 Wealthiest Pundits on Forbes' list - to determine their party's nominee. Democratic voters can choose to insulate themselves from media coronations and preferences, ignore distractions like Edwards' haircuts and Obama's missing American flag pin, and reject the prodding of a pundit elite that has been wildly wrong on everything from invading Iraq to the impact of NAFTA.

If not, I'm glad I won't be backstage in Iowa next January to see the Harlan McCraneys in Hillary Clinton's camp high-fiving each other.

Comments

[plutorage]

Jeff, your post is the most succinct criticism of the media's coverage of the Presidential race that I have seen.

The next question - I guess you have thought about it - is: At what stage do the elites, the opinion shapers, come to the conclusion that they are harming themselves? Does it come after it is too late?

We lived formerly in a fairly statically arranged world: Militarily East/West, Economically North/South. What do you think it takes to wake up the elites to the fact that things have changed? They just don't seem to be able to pull themselves out of the 90's, an age they bungled to begin with.

Why can the elites not understand that they are most likely to lose their vaunted positions by the very act of trying to hang on to them, by deception and corruption?

Another question for a smart guy: When Hilary is sitting in her office discussing policy with, say, her Sec. of State or National Sec. Adviser, do you think she actually understands what is happening or the consequences of what she is doing on the chance that she actually knows what is happening? Or is she the George Bush of democrats, higher IQ perhaps, but otherwise a simpleton, an inside joke among the elites, quite prepared to see nothing done of substance as long as they get theirs?

[morris1030]

plutorage,

Your rage is displaced. Whatever you may feel about Hillary, you are not thinking. Like her or not, suggesting she doesn't understand the consequences of her behaior, or worse, calling her a simpleton is a totally cynical and incorrect conclusion that fits your Rage Agenda.

Since you have enough imagination to conjure a policy meeting and state her inability to understand what is going on, I suggest you take yourself to a Dr. and find out what delusionary disease you are suffering from?

Barbara E. & Jeff Cohen belong to their own "elite group" of naysayers, cynics, purist fools, and along with GOP trolls are trying to damage Clinton in whatever way possible.

If she becomes the candidate and you and the left wing elites and other curmudgeons don't vote Democratic, then I offer you all the pity my accumulated years as a Democrat can give you.

You will be beyond pity if the Democrats don't win the next most momentous election of our lives.

Imagine then, all the hate you can spew and who then will you blame as America sinks further into
disgrace and irrelevance with the next GOP regime
of liars, murderers and thieves?

[DasBoot]

morris1030: First of all, there is no need to resort to name calling here. Disagreeing with you does not make somebody a fool, okay?

Second, you are implying that if we want the Democrats to win the next election, we have to nominate Hillary. Everybody who disagrees with that, in your book, will help installing another Republican.

I strongly disagree with that premise. It comes right out of that insider mentality that Jeff Cohen is decrying in his post. It takes leadership to translate progressive ideas into programs that the majority of voters will support. But the country, for the first time since 1968, is waiting for exactly that kind of leadership. And Hillary is not leading. She is just seasoned in positioning herself as electable.

Why should we settle for less just yet?

[plutorage]

morris,

my questioning of Hilary's ability to understand what was happening was not a rhetorical question. I am asking a real question. Don't you think it is possible that Kings, Queens, Presidents, are misled by advisors with their own agenda into acting in ways that are against the interest of the country? Richard Viguerie, the right wing political guru says "personnel is policy".
In other words, the people around Hilary may determine what happens as much as Hilary does. Is it not of utmost importance that Hilary udnerstand the consequences. Again, does she or does she not understand what is happening or does she simply followed "received wisdom" while collecting political cash and influence?

[Misanthrope2]

You seem to understand that Clinton will not be supported by many Democrats, and therefore, you should know that she will damage many down ticket candidates and that there is a serious question as to whether she can beat Giuliani. I think your personal attacks and name calling are just partisanship at its worst. And that you are intellectually dishonest about Clinton's chances.

[DrenchedOtter]

Thanks Jeff for the view behind the scenes, but I don't think what the pundits are saying is inconsistent or even necessarily right-leaning. Saying someone's campaign is "flawless" or that someone "won" a debate is simply talking about style instead of substance. They have an idea about what kind of style a candidate should exhibit, and they think Clinton exhibits that style. She could say she wants to make it illegal to wear red on Sundays, and as long as she keeps saying it over and over again, the pundits could continue to gush about how well she stays "on message".

I think the problem is that a lot of the main stream media has found out they can get an audience by avoiding talking about the issues, and instead talking about a candidate's style: what their demeanor is, what color clothes they wear, whether they get upset when someone disagrees with them, what their laugh sounds like, etc. Unfortunately, a candidate like Clinton who makes considerable effort to avoid taking a solid position fits that kind of media environment perfectly. You might call her the "Seinfeld candidate" -- a candidacy about nothing that nevertheless becomes a big hit.

[morris1030]

Dear Drenched,

The MSM hates Hillary. Some are only covering their ass as the polls are telling them the story. Are you really naive enough to suggst the MSM who enables Bush and gives cover to the GOP congress are talking about her "style" because they like her and/or are exaggerating her appeal?

MSM are only interested in keeping the public glued to the tube. In this case they are reacting to 2 things. Their general suck up to anyone they feel can win so as to place their future bets for
"access'. Has it ocurred to you the MSM is actually reacting to polling info?

Under no circumstance I could dream of would the MSM want a: a woman to become President. b: have enough imagination and guts to figure it all out without some hard polling data that shores up the credibility they require to keep their jobs by guessing right. Whoredom for MSM is an old story.

I wonder if you abstain voting for Hillary if she becomes candidate, what you will sound like in 2009 if she loses [ with help from the likes of you]. You will require a great deal of pity.

[Misanthrope2]

No one is asking for pity. Just a candidate who is not owned lock, stock and barrel by the multinational corporations and neo-con traitors. Clinton is still a Goldwater Girl and College Republican at heart. And it shows.

[naijaman]

So true about the debates. I remember watching the first debate, held in South Carolina. After it was over, the focus group of 407 South Carolinians who watched the debates said Obama won by 31% to Hillary's 24%. Yet the very next morning on MSBNC, Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough were discussing how "presidential" Hillary was in the debate and how she was the winner. Samr thing happened at the CNN/YouTube debate: Focus group gave the debate to Obama, yet the pundits proclaimed Hillary the winner. Again, at the AFL-CIO debate, the focus group on FOX NEWS gave the debate to Obama, yet the very first thing out of Chris Matthews' mouth was "Hillary was majestic!!".

Unreal...

[morris1030]

Fine. Perfect. Should she become candidate-don't vote, or better yet vote for GOP crud running for Pres.

Matthews is a pompous ass. Do you have to be one too?

If whatever Democrat is put before us, we should not hesitate to cast our vote. Have we gone so crazy that we cannot see what has happened to our country and what will continue to happen?

I have come to the conclusion that while the MSM always masturbates, it is no schock, But what does disturb me tremendously is the miserable bashing Hillary and other Dems are taking from the so called enlightened blogosphere as they play with themselves as Rome burns.

[morris1030]

I like him a lot but if he were electable he has had lots of time to gather a strong support group of backers,donors,political organization, etc.

Unfortunately Dennis knows that without all of this he cannot possibly win the nomination. It's easy for him to be so "out there". HE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO WIN AND NOTHING TO LOSE.

This doesn't mean I criticize him in any way. He has great ideas and great sensibility.

But please, lets try to understand the political process even though we don't like it. It is what it is, and we must deal with it before we can try to change it.

Leadership and change in our country cannot occur without a groundswell [ think Martin Luther King],
without the PEOPLE HITTING THE STREETS AND DOING THEIR SHARE OF THIS COMPACT.

We are at the shopping malls maxing out our cards. We are on the blogs. Dennis K. has not been able to fire enough donors or grass/net roots to be a viable contender. That's the way it works or didn't you kow?

[meandmagoo]

The reason so many declare Dennis Kucinich,the only true Democrat in the race,as unelectable,is because we've allowed the corporate media to decide he is.

We need to stand up and take this party back.I am utterly disgusted with the status quo Democrats going on and on about nominating an "electable" candidate.You do remember John Kerry,do you not?

For once,the chance for a real change in this country's course is at hand.Must we squander it on the corporate candidate?

[morris1030]

you may have to "squander" in order to save this country.

Why are bloggers so naive?

Concerned long time Democrat.

[apishapa]

Hillary's campaign is not flawless. And she may never go off message, but there is no real evidence that her message is all that great. She is tiptoeing on the balance beam too carefully, never allowing anyone to see how she really feels.

She was wrong to vote for war in Iraq and she was wrong again to vote for war in Iran. Giving Bush any leeway is the same thing as giving him the whole highway runn us off yet another cliff. And she knows it. That is why now she is backing the Webb amendment to try to hold Bush back. Too late.

And I hope one of her "handlers" has told her to stop with the laughing and answer questions seriously. War with Iran is not a joke.

[TurnThePageGA]

Neither is the fiasco in Iraq. Her political calculation already has cost us over 3800 lives from our forces and over 25,000 wounded. Not even counting the number of Iraquis. Sick of the crap about she was lied to about the intelligence, and the crap about if she (and Congress) had known what she knows now she (and Congress) would never have voted to give the President the authority to go to war, and the crap about her vote was to give the President authority to go to war as a last a last resort, and the crap about...... All of sudden, to broaden her appeal to the masses, we now learn her "faith" has been what has gotten her through Bill's crap and other challenges she has faced in life. And the Hillorites and Clintonistas would like us to just understand what she is doing (calculating) and "forgive" Hillary. Well that "faith" that she claims she possesses teaches that before forgiveness is given there is confession (admitting your sin or mistake or don't want to call it what it is). After confession comes repentence (a conscious turning away from the sin you have committed. An indicator that you have not repented is when you go and vote for Kyl-Leiberman). After you follow that process forgiveness can begin. Sorry but if her calculation will not allow her to confess - These words nothing less "My vote for this war was a mistake", and bring fruit of repentence, cease voting on crap like Kyl-Leiberman, She is not forgiven.

[morris1030]

I fervently hope that Hillary "tiptoes" to the White House, or for that matter any Democrat that will run?

Who would you like to "tiptoe" with? GOP??

[s4watson]

iam a democrat but I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON!!!

[MPeter]

Thanks Jeff, you rock. Thank you for calling them as you see them. HRC is only a stumble away fom disaster. The Clintonm money and power machines with the hang-ons will implode when Obama whizzes by. The tide is already turning to make way for a tsunami. You know, she has peaked. She can only come down but, she will fall with a thud.

[morris1030]

Your negativity is worthless. Obama or Edwards or Hillary will help keep our country from sinking into the sunset. If there is one thing blogs encourage it is nastiness based on bias and a lack of facts.

I hope any of the Dems running for candidate take the White House. They are, warts and all, head and shoulders over the GOP gang who will continue taking us down. How can we eat our own????

[Misanthrope2]

You are the most negative poster on this thread.

[morris1030]

MPeter,

I think it's you who are only a stumble away from disaster. Hoping ill for any Democrat during this horrific barbaric time is your own tsunami.

I pray to God that it doesn't become ours.

[IowaGirl]

I don't know anyone who is for Hillary, other than our Girl Scout/League of Women Voter-type mayor. Most of the progressive Demos around here are for Obama. Alas, this is what it was like in 2004,when Howard Dean seemed to be way ahead--in numbers and in the passion he generated among caucusgoers. But, all the centrists banded together and lifted Kerry out of the pack. I couldn't believe it, but what a big lesson. The DLC types in league with the media get their way. If she brings Bill with her every time she comes to Iowa, she will win hands down. What a phony.

[ZingoBonMot]

Jeff,

My wife and I have been fans of yours ever since reading "Cable News Confidential". As members of FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting), we look forward to the arrival of our copy of EXTRA! magazine every other month.
Glad to see you on HuffPo! America desperately needs many more informed voices like yours! All the Best!

[morris1030]

Fine, IowaGirl. If HRC becomes candidate vote for GOP. How progressive.

You are obviously unaware that HRC has MANY supporters. I am one of many. But I would not hesitate to vote for Obama or Edwards.

We are trying to save our Country. Remember?

[Misanthrope2]

You can't save the country be electing a closet fascist like Clinton. She is still a College Republican at heart.

[cynicaloptimist]

I am a pundit,
my thoughts are redundant.
Experts beware,
I'll slide in your chair
until my opinions are defunded.
I poo real research,
Murrow's name I besmirch,
while America's informed grow stunted.
I am a pundit.

[DEEPRINCE]

Finally someone calls out the BIG Clintophat in the room. But this could and should be applied to the entire DLC. Nancy P and the rest. They will not stand up for the people they represent nor the constitution they swore to uphold. Signing off silently on Big Oils take over of Iraq natural resources. While claiming to want to end the war they continue to fund. Can't impeach it's off the table they don't want to waste time on that it will take them from the important task of making Corporate America free from the scourge known as the american people. Not only wasting our tax dollars on a unnessary war. But then signing off on the War Profiteering of the Haliburtons, Blackwaters & Bectel private army wing. While finding it unnessary to raise the pay and benefits of the actual soldiers both parties claim to support. Impeach them all end the fake 2 party game with both playing for the same team.

[NABNYC]

Bill and Hillary are not stupid people. I continue to think that they have supported Obama behind the scenes to draw support away from Edwards. If you removed Obama from the scene, you are more likely to have a neck-and-neck between Clinton and Edwards. As long as they keep Obama in there, he draws support away from Edwards until Edwards is broke and out, and Hillary takes the whole pot. And Obama has been remarkably silent about Hillary.

Remember how we laughed about Bush having the box on his back, where someone was transmitting information to him so he could try to sound smart in the debates? Hillary's doing the same thing. She and her husband have spent all their years since he left the White House enriching themselves by getting money from corporate America. I think in 2001/2002, the first year they were out, they got $9.0 million. Most of us would live forever and leave a bunch for our heirs if we got $9.0 million. But the Clintons have been trolling for dollars every year since, and the amounts they've collected are obscene.

With that much money, Hillary can buy all the brains she wants, in addition to her own. I don't mean she's stupid. I just mean that she has a staff of hundreds writing speeches and position papers for her which allow her to say nothing to anyone, and everything to everyone, and smile smile smile.

Let's defeat her in the primaries. I say go with Edwards in each of the primaries. For you Obama supporters, if he's not willing to go after Hillary directly, why would you think he's going to stand up to the Republicans? Let's all support Edwards. Give peace a chance.

[altohone]

Obama called Hillary Bush-lite... without naming her. Then there's the emphasis on judgement when he called out those who signed Bush's blank check to go to war... Hillary and Edwards.

Pointing out the truth is hardly "remarkably silent". Obama's pledge to avoid the politics of destruction in the primaries is hardly justification for saying he's not willing or incapable. He has chosen to emphasize differences without getting into the gutter.

I'm all for defeating Hillary, but suggest rallying behind Obama instead of the DLC member and war resolution co-sponsor Edwards.

[Californian]

Sadly, Edwards is a good candidate who just hasn't caught on enough to raise the money necessary to compete nationwide. His acceptance of public financing means that he would not be allowed to spend a dime to defend himself against the Republican attack machine for the six months between the primaries and the convention. That was the original reason he pledged months ago that he would not accept public financing.

It's Obama vs. Hillary. The amazing grassroots movement that Obama is building nationwide--and especially in Iowa--is the only way to fight the Clinton machine and the pundits. He's simply going around them. Obama has beaten formidable machine politics before now and knows how to do it--and all without embracing the sickening divisiveness that is destroying our democracy.

(And isn't it amazing that the punditocracy can crown Queen Hillary the winner even when she snarks at Tim Russert three times in one debate?)

[morris1030]

NABNYC,

Yes by all means lets give peace a chance.

But are you really so naive that you are unaware of the amount of time and planning it will take to do this properly? And oh yes, that depends on the real truths a Democratic President will be confronted with.

The war must end. But realistically it cannot all end all at once overnight. Deploy, move materiel, know the political issues of the moment along with intelligence, etc.,etc.

I support any Democrat of the three top tier; all remarkable people in their own way, and any one of these will begin to deploy and create a team that can move not just militarily, but diplomatically and politically within Iraq and the region. Safely and intelligently.

We have to stop sounding like airheads who think a magic wand will end this war ASAP. There are complex issues regarding cleaning up the obscene mess left behind by Bush/Cheney and the Israel Bloc who would like to start a war with Iran as we speak.

Instead of bashing Democratic frontrunners, it would be far more productive to get behind them and empower all.

And as to buying brains, all of them should be able to find and/or buy all the brains they can get.

Your Hillary Hatred is counterproductive. Obama raised more until now and has been using it very openly against her as a measure of his superiority. O.K. But why then should Hillary be attacked for doing the same thing. She has not made the amounts she's raised the capstone of her campaign. Obama has.

Edwards is the wealthiest of the group, so what are you sounding off about?

When you find someone [including spoilsport Ralph Nader] who does not take money from Corporate America it would have to be a third Party that you should put your passion,money, and time behind to create. Until next time, we will be lucky to have any one of these three Democrats in the White House.

[Misanthrope2]

"Edwards is the wealthiest of the group, so what are you sounding off about?"

Some proof, please?

[morris1030]

NABNYC,

Has it ocurred to you that all candidates and nominees of all parties for past 200 yrs have had advisors,counsellors, attorneys,pollsters and their like even in Gen. Washington's time?

Generals, diplomats,foreign policy mavens,economists, all contribute to speechmaking and political positions, and donors for all the parties and their candidates,& presidents, etc.

Tell me who, what, when, and where this does not exist in any organized Free society?

[mgh234]

Free Trade isn't good "for corporations." It's good for some, and destroys others. The reason most Americans are against Free Trade because of Economic ignorance and folks like Lou Dobbs. Free trade will bring the highest GDP to America, and with fair income distribution (national health care, subsidies to the poor [subsidies for the poor work with a flat tax rate works best, but you can tax the poor more also with a slight decrease in efficiency, but either way it works better], etc ), we can keep the middle class and infact make them wealthier.

A completely inefficient trade policy is not the solution to economic disparagies.

[RealBlackGirl]

This is a real pick me up. I was beginning to question whether my television had some special filtering device because all I could hear was the double talk.

[dtd]

Finger snaps, girl! I was thinking the same thing. It's 21st century mind control. Instant polling and focus groups have consistently declared Senator Obama the winner of several debates, but the corporate owned pundits have their say, declaring Hillary Clinton the winner, and the public starts distrusting their own instincts and just fall in-line with the pundits, because of course they know more than us. Only in Hillaryland--ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC--can a candidate refuse to answer questions and be declared the winner. Damn, I wish that would work at a job interview!

[Nedsdag]

So am I.
Stop force feeding me Hillary. She's not the end all be all candidate. She's so programmed and calculating I cannot for the life of me understand why is she the "chosen one?"
I usually think Maureen Dowd is an obnoxious witch but she's right on the money by say if Hillary wasn't married to Bill, she'd be president of Vassar College.

[PADDYWHACK]

dtd,I'm with you we're all getting the bum's rush here.These polls sound phoney,her performance isn't that good.Obama looks and sounds better but he's being shown the door by the powers that be.Bush's election was straighter than this.

[altohone]

Manipulative is one of those adjectives applied to people we really don't like.

The manipulation of this country into war with Iraq should have awaken the public to be wary of our elected leaders, pundits and media.

Instead, Hillary's Kool-Aid is being swallowed by Democrats... or, we could argue that polls are being manipulated to make it appear that way.

The media blitz of "inevitability" suggests voters in Iowa and New Hampshire aren't as gullible as the pundits hoped... there wouldn't be a need for all the hype if Hillary had them conned effectively.

Nobody likes to be suckered. Nobody wants to the victim of a shell game or pyramid scheme.

I fully trust the good people of Iowa and New Hampshire will question Hillary's mealy-mouthed doublespeak, won't buy into the GOP's favored opponent, and will reject the corporatist DLC coronation.

The debate question "Can you guarentee full withdrawal?" was geared to outrage the base and blur differences in favor of Hillary. A yes answer would have been villified as ignoring possible contingencies (of course Richardson got a pass since he's a Clinton insider, and Kucinich and Gravel could be ignored).

The question's phrasing ignores that Hillary has PROMISED to keep 60,000 troops in Iraq.

The inability to guarentee full withdrawel is quite different than a guarentee not to withdraw.

Hillary's only real challenger, Barack Obama, didn't fall for the trap. Let's hope the media blitz surrounding the 2013 "outrage" is viewed for what it was... pure manipulation.

Obama in '08!

[Misanthrope2]

Sorry, but Obama is an empty suit who has accomplished no significant legislation and who is taking lobbyist money. He doesn't say anything except broad platitudes into which people can project their hopes and desires.

There is no "there" there.

[Desiderata]

The Hillary Twist

Come on Dems, let's do the (Hillary) twist.
Come on Dems, let's do the (Hillary) twist.
Twista-twista-twista-twista,
Through the cloud of bliss.

Do you remember what she said last summer?
Do you remember what she said last fall?
Twisting with her, you got to just get dumber.
So let's twist with her to the Inaugoral Ball.

So round and round and round and round we go again.
That is why we can never know just where she'll go, again.

So let's (Hillary) twist again through another year.

[davidly]

They're always enraptured by someone. Sort of like how humankind had to create a God to believe in, it makes them feel a sense of hope. Just what they are hope-ing into, I've no idea.

[dtd]

Was it Marx who said religion and opium was invented to control the masses? Should we add Hillary to that?

[Rule Of Law]

dtd--

What Marx said was:

"Religion IS the opiate of the masses." And I agree; religion, opium and hillary will leave you feeling disempowered and confused.

The Punditocracy will bombard Edwards and Obama with questions about haircuts and lapel pins, but never ask the questions of those who should be held accountable about why this war seems invisible; why men and women die in Iraq and WE HAVE YET TO SEE THE PHOTOGRAPHS TO HONOR THEIR SACRIFICE!

If my sons were stupid enough to be in Iraq, I'd at least want to know that the media had their back, like in Nam, and that the lead story each night would be putting a human face on the suffering there. Because without that, with only overfed armchair pundits sucking off the same corporate tit that funds this madness, we have no idea what it done in our name.

And hillary will be just more of the same.

[davidly]

She'll certainly inherit the unprecedented powers to do so, if she's appoint... I mean, elected.

[morris1030]

Religion and Opium have been exploited to the max by the GOP, or didn't you notice.

Your hatred for Hillary is troubling for if she does become Candidate you will apparently not vote. Or vote GOP. God Help You.

You should start to think and leave your hatred at the door. Americans have been taught to hate,hate,hate. This will take us all down.

[Misanthrope2]

Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man"state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. [Emphasis added]

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Karl Marx " Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right."

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

Indeed, religion is the opiate of the masses.