THREE EASY PIECES! Until we explain this tribe to the public, theyll live on—to slaughter again: // link // print // previous // next //
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2007
MANY INSULTS, ZERO EXAMPLES: Bob Herberts column today is astounding. We may not be able to post tomorrow. But well try to get to it.
STRAIGHT OUTTA THE BOYZ CLUB: What a sad post by Kevin Drum, concerning a possible race between Clinton and Giuliani. As we said, just sad—and saddening:
DRUM (2/26/07): That would be a hell of a campaign, wouldn't it? Two New Yorkers, playing out the unfinished grudge match of their 2000 Senate race. A mayor vs. a senator. The first major party female candidate in history. And just possibly the two toughest, most polarizing, most single-mindedly ambitious politicians on the national stage today. I hope we all survive.I hope we all survive, Kevin cries. Sweet reason has already failed to.
Good God! Kevin!! Can anyone explain what it means to say that Giuliani and Clinton are just possibly the two most single-mindedly ambitious politicians on the national stage today? For example, what makes Giuliani more ambitious than Romney—or than McCain, who has turned himself into pretzels twice in his endless pursuit of the White House? And what makes Clinton more ambitious than Edwards? Or than Obama? Clinton? The person who spent the first thirty years of her adult life deferring to somebody elses ambitions? This statement—by Kevin Drum, of all people—is so butt-stupid it hurts.
And then, the use of polarizing! You can certainly frame a narrow definition under which Kevins statement fits Clinton. (We have no idea why it fits Giuliani, who has disturbingly good numbers among Dem voters.) But some pols are polarizing because of things they have done; others are polarizing because of whats been done to them. Our question: What did Clinton do in the past fifteen years to put herself into the former category? Say that she could have stayed home and baked cookies? Hillary Clinton is a polarizing figure in that a lot of dumb-asses irrationally hate her—just as they were later trained to hate Gore. But thats because Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Pat Buchanan spent fifteen years talking trash about her. (And of course, because shes a multiple murderer. Lets not forget that blot on her record.) But so what? Today, Kevin puts that outcome on her. Its pure Jim Nicholson spin—bred to a cave boys heart.
Final note from this profoundly sad post: Two New Yorkers, playing out the unfinished grudge match of their 2000 Senate race? In what way was Clinton involved in a grudge match? Yes, this dovetails with the dumbest stereotypes of New Yorkers, so it may feel good forty miles from L.A. But in what way was Clinton involved in a grudge match? In November 1999, she announced she was running for the Senate. A few months later, Giuliani—who had never announced he was running—said hed decided not to run. Giuliani never even entered the race; technically, no such race ever existed! But so what? Today, were told that crazily ambitious Witch Clinton will get a chance to finish her grudge match. Its a grudge match that never existed, except in the minds of the worried young lads who find her presence unsettling.
Lets say it. Thanks to the tortured minds of the broken boys who persist in running the affairs of our world, women will never succeed at matters like these until theyre two or three times as good. Like the idiot Geffen before him, Kevin Drum can tell whos ambitious. As it always turns out—its the girl!
[Edited for name-calling insults.]
HOW HILLARY GOT TO BE POLARIZING: How did Clinton become so polarizing? Heres Pat Buchanan at the 1992 Republican convention in Houston. When you say that Hillary Clinton is polarizing, this is pretty much what you mean:
BUCHANAN (8/17/92): Elect me, and you get two for the price of one, Mr. Clinton says of his lawyer-spouse. And what—and what does Hillary believe? Well, Hillary believes that 12-year-olds should have the right to sue their parents, and Hillary has compared marriage and the family as institutions to slavery and life on an Indian reservation. Well, speak for yourself, Hillary! [laughter]Congratulations, Kevin! Thats how Clinton became polarizing. Heres a second bite of the fruit:
BUCHANAN: Friends, this election is about much more than who gets what. It is about who we are. It is about what we believe and what we stand for as Americans. There is a religious war going on in this country. It is a cultural war as critical to the kind of nation we shall be as the Cold War itself, for this war is for the soul of America. And in that struggle for the soul of America, Clinton and Clinton are on the other side, and George Bush is on our side. And so to the Buchanan brigades out there, we have to come home and stand beside George Bush.Yep. Thats how Clinton became polarizing. And, of course, she became even more polarizing when Gennifer Flowers was invited on TV to say these things to Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS (8/2/99): Now what do you think of Hillary's sort of role here in this role of offering herself up as the therapy nurse, and he's the JD—juvenile delinquent from the troubled background, and she's looking out for him all these years, and she ought to get rewarded for that with a Senate seat?See, Kevin? Chris thought the bitch was too ambitious too! And so did the weak-minded boys at Fox, who enjoyed the following conversation as they showed a dated photo from the 70s. A few days earlier, Bill Clinton had described how he fell in love with his wife when they were students in law school. In response, Brit Hume posted the photo of a young Mrs. Clinton—a photo which he found unattractive. For the next several minutes, Humes panel broadcast their views straight outta the Fox News Boyz Club. Just try to believe that they did this:
HUME (8/23/99): The picture he paints of Mrs. Clinton is of a sort of a femme fatale. Now thats about what she looked like then [group laughter]. And one—one cant help but wonder about this [group laughter].Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Disgraceful, wasnt it? For the record, Birnbaum will say any damn thing to be one of the boys, and Williams has been accused of sexual harassment during his career at the Post. (As of 1999, the episode hadnt had much effect on his half-witted, crude sensibility.) For the record, Tod Lindberg refused to take part in this display of group humor. But no one complained about this in the press. E. J. Dionne was a good boy, as always. No female pundit said boo.
Yep! That was the atmosphere in cable news as Gore was attempting to run for the White House. But Clinton stuck it out—due to her witch-like ambition—and she won her grudge match with Giuliani.
How did Clinton get to be polarizing? At THE HOWLER, we can recall. We get the feeling that Kevin does not. (There are endless examples we could cite. Weve skipped the pornographic Christmas ornaments she used on the tree in the White House.) But then, you know the ways of the world. These boyz have always been like that. Michelle Wie? OK, well let her play. Clinton? No, not so much.
BOOTH (2/25/07): Gore is escaping the fate of most former politicians, says Matt Bennett, a consultant for Democrats who worked closely with Gore during his vice presidency...He was right about everything, Bennett is quoted saying—in paragraph 27 of Booths 29-paragraph piece.
More below on the ridicule Bennett cited. But lets say a few words about what happened last night—and about the things youll see in the mainstream press corps this week.
First step: Read the way the mainstream press described Earth in the Balance in 1992. In fact, everyone knew Gore was right even then, years before all that ridicule started. Bennetts statement might make it sound like this realization is new. Reread those reviews. It isnt.It would take a more skilled writing team than ours to describe the depth of Kakutanis indecency. We can say this: In almost nine years at THE DAILY HOWLER, we have never seen anything as disingenuous—as corrupt—as the way she pulled a few sentences out of context (from page 213—with key words left out!), then pretended that the doctored passage showed us the strange-ness of Gores loony book. But again, its as we told you on Friday: When you follow the three easy steps weve suggested, youll start to see the size of the scam the mainstream press corps played on the public for twenty straight months during Campaign 2000. They knew he was right in 1992. They know he was right again today. But in Campaign 2000, they pretended to think something different—and they sent George Bush to the White House.
So yes; for better or worse, thats why Gore was on stage last night and not in the White House. And thats why your army is in Iraq, instead of helping Afghanistan. And by the way: To this very day, our liberal leaders refuse to tell voters about this truly remarkable story. For reasons we cant begin to grasp, even the most famous libs on the web refuse to discuss this pivotal event—the event which changed the course of world history. (Some of them were actively misstating the facts of this matter as late as 2002.) And this endless silence has massive consequences. Our nominee will be a target next year because our leaders refuse to discuss the scam that was played against this nominee. We refuse to explain what happened back then—and so, it will happen again.
To his credit, Booth quotes many supporters and colleagues of Gore as they sing the praises of Gores work and character; though he throws in the silly jokes his tribe will never abandon, he does give Gores supporters and friends a full chance to discuss his success. But these colleagues pf Gore will not be the ones to tell the story the public should hear. Here, for example, is Guggenheim himself, explaining why Gore is now honored:
BOOTH: "People ask him all the time what does he attribute his recent success to and Gore tells them 'reality,' " says Larry Schweiger, a friend and president of the National Wildlife Federation, who is a leader of Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection, a foundation that seeks to bring evangelicals, hunters, farmers and entrepreneurs to the cause. "They used to ridicule him. They called him a tree-hugger. They don't do that anymore."Sadly, Larry Schweiger is wrong when he says that Gore is no longer ridiculed; just put on the simpering frat boys of MSNBC if you want to be see that notion shattered. On the other hand, Guggenheim is certainly right when he says that its we who have changed, not Gore—but he doesnt go far enough to explain what those changes have been. In particular, he doesnt explain who made Candidate Gore a target every moment [he was] in front of the camera. But readers, that isnt Guggenheims job. Thats the job of us on the web.
Who subjected Candidate Gore to that ridicule? Who made Candidate Gore such a target? And who sent George W. Bush to the White House? Seven years later, our liberal elites still wont tell! Its great to see Gore getting praised on page one of the Washington Post. But the story of the Posts prior conduct still is not getting told.
Why was Gore on stage last night? One more time, follow those three easy steps and youll see how Bush reached the White House. By the way, did we mention the fact that Kakutani is Maureen Dowds good-buddy friend?
IN THE SHOES OF THOSE WHO CAME BEFORE: Kakutani wanted readers to think that Gore had a hole in his soul. So she didnt tell them the things Gore had said about his love and respect for his parents. Instead, she picked-and-chose, in an indecent way, then said: He didnt get enough love! In almost nine years, weve never seen a piece that was more disingenuous—a piece that was so indecent.
GORE (12/9/98): Of all the lessons he taught me as a father, perhaps the most powerful was the way he loved my mother. He respected her as an equal, if not more. He was proud of her. But it went way beyond that. When I was growing up, it never once occurred to me that the foundation upon which my security depended would ever shake. As I grew older, I learned from them the value of a true, loving partnership that lasts for life.Al Gore got lucky when he picked out his parents. He also said this, a bit later on:
GORE: Don't ever doubt the impact that fathers have on their children. Children with strong fathers learn trust early on, that their needs will be met, that they're wanted, they have value, they can afford to be secure and confident, they will get the encouragement they need to keep on going through any rough spots they encounter in life.Thats what Gore thought about his late father. And yes, as weve seen, Gore did learn to keep on going through the rough spots. Heres what John Lesher, the distributor of Gores film, said in Sundays Post:
BOOTH: Lesher explains that, from a marketing and branding perspective, Gore was lugging some very heavy baggage. "Democrats felt disappointed in him, and Republicans didn't like him," he says. "But it worked." How come? What comes through in the film, Lesher says, "is here is this person who has gone through this incredible adversity"—Florida recount, Supreme Court decision, bye-bye White House—"and this is what he decides to do," the one-man slide show, "and so you see this massive integrity.In the film, Gore decides to keep on going. He had described the process in 1998. But eleven months later, Kakutani was picking-and-choosing from Earths Introduction, quoting only the parts which sounded unflattering—and saying that Gore was a borderline nutcase who didnt get enough love from his parents. For better or worse, Kakutanis indecent conduct—repeated thousands of times, all through the press corps—explains why Gore was on stage last night. It explains why he wasnt in the White House.
But then, Gore was raised by decent people—by parents he always loved and admired. And yes, he stood in their shoes last night. This weekend, as we searched for the statements weve posted above, we reread Gores funeral oration for his father. If you want to know the long strain of decency which Kakutani held up to that ridicule, we strongly suggest that you read the whole thing. To do so, just click here.
Meanwhile, please dont misunderstand the nature of this eight-year-old transaction. In the past fifteen years, the interests of decent American people have been endlessly slaughtered by an indecent cohort. Theyre too rich, theyre too famous; theyre much too dumb. Theyre a race of insipid, inane Antoinettes. But their tribe controls your national discourse. They slaughtered Gore in 1999, and they slaughtered your nations interests in the process. Until we explain this tribe to the public, theyll live on—and theyll slaughter again.