Tweety's Clinton Rules

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:18:02 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

Jamison Foser explains:

When The New York Times ran a 2,000-word article about the state of the Clintons' marriage in May of 2006, the paper passed on gossip about Bill Clinton and a Canadian politician named Belinda Stronach. . . . Chris Matthews, among others, loved -- loved -- the article. He discussed it again and again and again on Hardball. He -- approvingly -- described it as a warning from The New York Times to Clinton that "he better watch it" and "behave himself." . . .In short, Matthews did not criticize the Times article; he endorsed it.

More...

. . . Now, how did Matthews react to the Times article about McCain, a man Matthews has said "deserves" to be president? Did he repeatedly ask if McCain would "behave himself" during the campaign? Did he approvingly note that the Times had sent a warning that McCain "better watch it"? Of course not. . . . Instead, Matthews turned on the Times for the same type of reporting it had employed in the Clinton article. Again and again he used his perch at MSNBC to rail against the Times not only for using unnamed sources in the McCain article, but for failing to explain why it was granting the sources anonymity, which, as Matthews pointed out, is inconsistent with the Times' guidelines. . . .

If NBC was worried about its pattern of behavior, here is yet another example of it. Chris Matthews, as opposed to David Shuster, SHOULD be fired.

< Obama Backers File Complaint With FEC to Block Hillary Ads | Obama in Austin: More Confident or Too Confident? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Tweety's Clinton Rules | 46 comments (46 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I'll never understand (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Miss Devore on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:36:54 PM EST

bloggers continually seizing on tv talking heads or paper columnists articles as if they were the meat of things.

it will all be so clean and easy, now (5.00 / 4) (#15)
by Turkana on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:41:53 PM EST

the clintons finally will have been defeated. safe people, people who don't rock boats, people who show up for sally quinn's parties, will have prevailed.

: You forgot (5.00 / 4) (#21)
by koshembos on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:42:04 PM EST

that finally the wolf and the lamb will Live in peace. Or is less biblical terms: there will be change and hope.

As long as people like Matthews (5.00 / 0) (#17)
by Anne on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:44:30 PM EST

can keep the ratings up, there will be no relief from him or his ilk.

Really, the more informed one is, the more obvious it is how skewed the reporting is. Anyone who watches a hearing on C-SPAN, and then sees how it is reported on the evening news, knows that we are being told what some suit has decided is best for us to know.

I've come to the conclusion that there is not a shred of commitment to objectivity in the media, and the only defense is to stop allowing them to tell you what to think and feel about what is happening in the world.

It's the only way to make the Chris Matthews' of the world irrelevant. And the only way to stay reasonably sane.

Matthews' ratings (none / 0) (#38)
by BernieO on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 07:58:21 AM EST

aren't all that hot.
The best ratings on MSNBC a few years back was Donohue but they cancelled it because they were afraid it was too liberal. So it's about more than just ratings.


: Exactly (none / 0) (#42)
by Lora on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:13:58 AM EST

They will support the (right wing) establishment.

NBC Rules (5.00 / 0) (#24)
by white n az on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:01:14 PM EST

They are for the Republicans
McCain is their guy
The rest is for fun

why watch NBC/MSNBC?

We will remember-There Will Be Blood (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by lily15 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:10:32 PM EST

Yes, you are so right. There are many of us watching this charade and getting angrier by the minute. This is a problem with A list male progressive bloggers and opinion makers..and so called liberal pundits..and it is a serious problem...and many many women may very well not vote for Obama. I many not be one of the those women...but everywhere I go, I hear this. Clearly, this behavior will not be forgotten...and depending on the outcome, never forgiven. But a lot of men don't quite get it. So we'll need to send a message. As Paul Thomas Anderson's excellent movie states: There Will Be Blood

Leading Bloggers Can Talk About It (4.00 / 0) (#29)
by lily15 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:27:18 PM EST

Yes TalkLeft could talk about a boycott...and it would get noticed...and if TheLeftCoaster joined and a few others...It's absurd to think about doing anything now...but when the season is over...And depending on how angry we are...why would we want to watch MSNBC or any of these idiots anymore?

Stop reading (none / 0) (#39)
by BernieO on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:00:05 AM EST

Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich, too. They have enemies of Democrats for years, but when they criticised Bush, everyone forgot about that.


: Doesn't matter (none / 0) (#43)
by Lora on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:15:02 AM EST

Everybody criticizes Bush.

you have to admit (none / 0) (#1)
by elim on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:28:49 PM EST

Clinton has a longer and more sordid history than McCain without the honorable conduct of the latter. still irrelevant-it seems there is other conduct of BC that can be criticized that has nothing to do with sex.

You must be joking. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by MarkL on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:36:25 PM EST

McCain has been a scoundrel and huckster for his whole political career. Think Duke Cunningham with a little more charisma and maybe a few more brains.


Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by rooge04 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:51:11 PM EST

Clinton's history is now sordid and worthy of no praise. Unlike McCain. Who took up the theme of 'campaign reform' until he got caught with his pants down doing favors for lobbyists.


Now this is what I call a typical (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by Florida Resident on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:53:28 PM EST

Republican TP


You mean McCain's adultery? (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by lily15 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:13:20 PM EST

He carried on an affair with a much younger women...who was very rich...and married her so he could begin a political career? Is this what you are referring to...an adulterer? How about Keating 5? How about Sinclair Broadcasting...the subject of the NYT story..insofar as it starts probing McCain's lobbying ties...


You said it (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:29:33 PM EST

irrelevant so I need admit nothing.


Have you forgotten (none / 0) (#4)
by tree on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:35:01 PM EST

the Keating Five?


That is one thing I learned (none / 0) (#11)
by oculus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:01:34 PM EST

from the NYT story; although McCain championed by Keating, McCain was merely reprimanded for poor judgment. He came out of that in much better shape than those who did not have such a close personal connection to Keating. Amazing.


: The other Senator (none / 0) (#40)
by BernieO on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:01:45 AM EST

who was only reprimanded was John Glen.

Schuster (none / 0) (#3)
by tek on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:34:56 PM EST

says he did nothing wrong, he's just a scapegoat. So now calling someone a pimp (sorry--Schuster's word) is not wrong.

P. S. I might have David's name spelled wrong, but I don't care.

Not in the article I read. He did say he felt he (none / 0) (#7)
by Teresa on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:37:48 PM EST

paid the price for the perceived (by him, I know it) anti-Clinton slant on MSNBC. He did say he made a very bad choice of words.


: Blame throwing: (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by oculus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 07:57:39 PM EST

I was at the wrong place at the right time, or the right place at the wrong time. I don't know which.

David Shuster

Tweety (none / 0) (#12)
by sas on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:16:40 PM EST

is not a journalist.

Double standards are standard for him.

BTW, now that he thinks Clinton is out of the way, he will now go on the attack of Obama. It's already started.

Then he can have a love-fest with his buddy John.

Interesting to see two posts here (none / 0) (#13)
by oculus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:21:02 PM EST

today referencing the portion of the NYT story that, in BTD's opinion, the NYT should have not run.

It should hadn't run it nor should had run the (none / 0) (#14)
by Florida Resident on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:30:03 PM EST

Clinton one in 2006. In both of them unsubstantiated rumors are used to smear.


Try as I might, I can't figure out how (none / 0) (#16)
by oculus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:43:00 PM EST

the NYT could have included the information (substantiated) that McCain's advisors warned the lobbyist not to be where McCain was, and why they warned her without somehow indicating what the advisors were concerned about. Certainly doesn't make it true, and, in fact, McCain has denied a sexual relationship with here, but if what the advisors were worried about was omitted from the NYT story, what is the context for them warning her to stay away?


I don't know but the purpose of this (none / 0) (#19)
by Florida Resident on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:55:11 PM EST

thread is really about tweety's reaction and how different it was for the McCain story than for Bill Clinton's story.


: True. I digressed. (none / 0) (#20)
by oculus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:59:20 PM EST

That's a case of (none / 0) (#18)
by Alien Abductee on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 08:52:23 PM EST

the BTD Rules.


We are just in so much trouble. Why? (none / 0) (#22)
by tigercourse on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 09:47:30 PM EST

Because McCain has gotten a fair shake on this poorly run "sex" scandal story. If this were Clinton or even Obama it would be plastered on the news 24/7. But it hasn't been. Go to cnn.com or the msnbc website. The story is nowhere to be seen.

I consider this proof that McCain will be treated well by the media. Basically the only hope Obama has of beating McCain is media coverage slanted in his favor. He isn't going to get that. So much trouble.

: bingo, Obama's media darling status (none / 0) (#27)
by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:20:07 PM EST

will be revoked the minute he gets the nomination. media relationships with Saint John go way back.

Talk about boycott (none / 0) (#28)
by lily15 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:23:37 PM EST

NBC and MSNBC Talk about it alot. No, of course we wouldn't manage an organized boycott...but the more we mention it...the more it takes root in the unconscious...And the more MSNBC sees this talk on the blogs...Of course, this would happen after the election...but it would feel good to take one's anger out on particularly egregious networks. Anyway, talking about a boycott feels good. Punishment. Many of us are losing our loyalty to the Democratic Party as a result of the way HIllary is being treated, and especially for the intellectual dishonesty. How this will manifest...I'm not sure...but economic punishment usually works best. Already, DailyKos is losing its number of hits...and after the election, many will never go back they are so soured. Instead, places like TalkLeft are benefitting as a result of their intellectually honest discussions. People aren't idiots. At least the ones who come here LOL.

: Gave up MSNBC (none / 0) (#37)
by kenoshaMarge on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 06:10:17 AM EST

a long time ago. Tweety spitting down his chin was nauseating enough without the verbal drivel er dribble.
Because I like to be well informed I now get any information about Tweety's latest stupidity from someplace on line. (Usually Media Matters & TalkLeft) I refuse to help his ratings by watching and besides, it's very bad for my blood pressure. And my I.Q.

: I will not be going back to DK - (none / 0) (#45)
by Boo Radly on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:37:09 PM EST

ever. What they hope to gain by their bias is unworthy of my time. I thought at first Fuxs Noise had invaded - then a Front pager attacked me for chiding a poster ( it was a five word post starting with blow and ending with arse - not directed at me) who had a "lower" UID number than me(21,000) and that should have been enough to warn me??. The front pager lives in DC - wanna be commentator(which is now spelled "common tater" - unworthy opinions based on what benefits them). The damage that site has done to the Democratic Party will be lasting in my opinion.
Tweety is on the same level as Fuxs - never to be viewed - has no value. I call it the "rare air syndrome" - no oxygen - brain atropy. Why not boycott MSNBC - they demonstrate no American values. Sorry for the rant - I really care about my country and what is happening, how little or no facts are reported, or they are terribly slanted and personal attacks on some who have serviced this country honorably.

The spin is right (none / 0) (#30)
by Lora on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:41:01 PM EST

Example after example pile up. NYT is being discredited over McCain, whereas Clintons were being discredited by rotten NYT journalism.

Matthews and his ilk will use whatever is available to spin to the right.

I don't know about Shuster. Maybe just his sexism slipped out. Wrong place, wrong time.

Here we go again (none / 0) (#31)
by 1jane on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:49:21 PM EST

Jeralyn and Big Tent are grasping at staws trying to gin up all the baaaaaaad journalism to defend the Queen. The shrill Hill who has no chance to be the nominee for the Democratic presidential election. Its over. Theres no one left to blame. Time to move on to being a good Democrat instead of unending whining, blaming and useless rationalizations..Hill and Bill are sooooooo over!

Tweety! (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by tree on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:51:54 PM EST

You're here! How honored we are to have your manly presence gracing this blog! How's that leg thing feeling these days?


: zing! Thanks for that. (none / 0) (#35)
by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 12:17:07 AM EST

hahahahahaha (none / 0) (#32)
by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:55:42 PM EST

Shrill Hill? (none / 0) (#36)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 01:23:22 AM EST

Come to the side with people who would use the term "Shrill Hill" to describe a valid presidential candidate whom half our primary voters have voted for?

Well, sorry, no can do.


Support for Tweety (none / 0) (#41)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:27:03 AM EST

The Clinton Rules personified.

IT is disgusting that Obama supporters are supporting this.


: Some will compromise their principles (none / 0) (#44)
by Lora on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:18:51 AM EST

...to see their side win. However, the radical right will really pull out all the stops. This is next to nothing compared with what they have done and will do in this upcoming election.

1Jane I don't know what you are (none / 0) (#33)
by athyrio on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 11:13:49 PM EST

but you can "bet your bippy" you sure as heck arent a "good democrat"....Because most "good democrats" arent automatically falling for Obama's shtick....and we sure as heck don't discount the Clinton legacy....

Really? (none / 0) (#46)
by Mystic55 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:46:15 PM EST

So does that make McCain and Hillary's campaign an insult to blacks?

Quit playing the Sex card.

: biggest non-sequitur of this thread (none / 0) (#47)
by tree on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:38:02 AM EST

Or are you really not understanding that the complaint is not that Obama is campaigning for President. (Or that McCain is also.) Its that Clinton is being treated much more harshly in the press and the blogs for the same type of things that male candidates do every day? Two different sets of rules.
So, please, quit with the "playing the Sex Card" cr*p. Or make an honest argument that disagrees with the idea that Clinton has been treated worse by Tweety and much of the rest of the pundocracy and be willing to support it with facts.