To call it extremely critical of Clinton's advisers would be an understatement.
3/13/2008 01:57:00 AM
I've always enjoyed and appreciated Olbermann's Special Comments and his show in general while believing that his passionate and flip style of delivery makes it more difficult for his opponents to take him seriously.In this segment I heard something from him that I didn't expect- a defense of Hillary Clinton based on her personal integrity before her shameful pattern of smear tactics began. It was a reminder that despite all this there is still a lot to like about her as a candidate and a person. That gives me some hope that Olbermann isn't content to merely preach to the converted. I appreciate his efforts to raise the level of discourse in the campaign.
Well put, Mike. That's what I saw as well. In the heat of a campaign, just as in life, things can get out of hand. A candidate has to rely on advisers to guide her, and friends to tell her when she's crossing lines.I guess he could have just decided to stay quiet and let her crash and burn.
WOW. I couldn't watch this before because for some reason it won't play on my computer. Firefox clog, maybe.I don't understand why he's giving her a pass and blaming it on her advisors. Can the woman not think for herself? Why do I get the impression that the integrity in the Obama campaign radiates from Obama? Is it because it's so obvious to everyone that Clinton's being marketed? That the bigotry is just a marketing strategy and not really her? If so, what the heck is she?
He's probably giving her the benefit of the doubt (rare in the media these days) and preempting the easiest criticism of his comment, that Hillary can't be responsible for everything members of her campaign say. She *should* be held accountable, as should any candidate, but that's probably unrealistic. Barring that, she should at least strongly condemn those foolish statements.
Let's chalk it up to "experience"!
Maggie, I agree with your train of thought, but I don't see that he was really giving Clinton that much of a "pass", basically saying she's "playing the role of the republican" and she's not policing her campaign.Mike, you are right, and the lack of accountability for subordinates' actions turns my stomach. But I'll chalk that up to my being "institutionalized" in my chosen profession. War is an instrument of policy, but that never meant politicians and warriors are held to the same standards.Why hasn't she fired her advisors? I dunno...maybe she gave them a "YFG" talkin' to after this and made them wish she had fired them. Maybe she and her advisors feel that "disowning" these types of remarks in a calm manner is a more powerful statement than saying how disgusted she is with Ferraro's words. Maybe they knew this might slip out, and don't mind that it did. Again, I dunno, but...With the time it took to let Ferraro step down and issue the statement of disagreement, I wonder if it's somewhere between the second and third argument.It fits my "First Divine Mystery of Politics" - That politics was, is, and always will be dirty business, and politicians are, first and foremost, self-serving power-hungry people who want to be more powerful, and secondly people who will do and say what needs to be said and make the "drug deals" necessary to get into office.On some level, either directly or implied, she was okay with this happening.
I agree that she must have been somewhat okay with Ferraro's remarks, or at least willing to wait and see how other people reacted first. Otherwise, she certainly had the option to act in a more decisive manner. (Swift and decisive action is impressive when it's not misplaced... like in Iraq, or wherever...)I mean, this is the person who demanded that Obama use her particular word to reject, denounce, whatever, Farrakhan's endorsement. C'mon.Maybe I'm reading too much into Olbermann's commentary, because it seems to me that, rather than giving her a free pass, he's calling attention to Clinton's inability to assemble a worthy team, or to recognize and deal with team members who become liabilities. Which reminds me of someone else currently in office.It might have been more entertaining to watch him rake Clinton over hot coals, as Colbert has been doing; but that would also give her more ammo for her claim that she's treated unfairly by the media. (Never mind that bad behavior is SUPPOSED to make you look bad!)
I had read an article a week or so ago (maybe longer), probably in NYT because I end up reading a lot there, that discussed Clinton's choice of advisors and criticized her for taking so long to shake up her campaign when Obama was winning eleven straight. It said that Clinton preferred the old and familiar to new (and effective?). So I seem to remember the conclusion was that she surrounds herself with people she knows, whether they have experience, or the best experience, or not. I think in the same article it mentioned how all her advisors hate each other.
That REALLY sounds Bushlike.
Post a Comment