MEDIA MAUNDERING: HILLARY WON'T QUIT YET AND THEY DON'T KNOW WHY
Well, it’s official. Every pundit, poobah, prognosticator and psephologist has analyzed with what they consider to be great particularity and precision Hillary's reluctance or refusal to drop out of her quest to become the Democratic nominee and not one has any explanation for it. Not one. Nada. Zippo. Yet they keep yammering away day after day, night after night, column after column. And they are saying nothing. News chat hosts show incessant clips and march out the usual passel of columnists and commentators and no clear explanation for her activities or plans is even suggested. Remember SNL’s bit: Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead? This should be stated: We still have no earthly idea why Hillary Clinton is still in this race. And on with the show.
Think of it: What are they talking about? Nightly, no less. Nothing. But don’t think that that will stop the commentators. Are you kidding? The show will go on each night whether they have anything intelligent to say or not. That’s what the guests are for. Think TV Hamburger Helper -- they stretch the show.
I can’t say I blame them though, these political swamis. This recalcitrance on Hill’s part knows no equal or analogue. What? A team that refuses to leave the field after they’ve lost and the whistle’s blown? That Japanese soldier who doesn’t know the war’s over? Hell, at least in that case, he doesn’t have cable and just doesn’t know any better.
Take Chris Matthews (please). Nobody typifies the (sadly) hysterical attempt to grasp at the punditry straws better than the pride of the Keystone State. His explanations make Machiavelli look like a piker. No one is better at explicating the circuitous, the labyrinthine and the needlessly complex than Chris. And I feel for his guests. These poor souls, each vying for national attention and the chance to be the next network talking head, are forced to listen to the hyper-salivating Matthews propose a Dr. Irwin Corey-esque query and try their best to come up with an answer that’s vaguely cogent. They should learn from my esteemed colleague Rachel Maddow. I think she’s fabulous, especially when she gives the inquisitor that look that suggests “What the **** are you talking about?”
As I write this, I’ve MSNBC on in the background. Seventies porn soundtrack music has more substance than this drivel. And someone needs to say it.
I think I just did.
- FILED UNDER: Host Posts
- May 12, 2008
Get the Hook...
I have Hillary Fatigue and so does the rest of the world. The problem is that no one has the gumption in the Democratic Party to say Basta! Enough! Genug! Get the hook!
And Hillary has shown that despite once being a viable candidate, she is nothing more than a down-and-dirty politician who carries a sense of entitlement to the American political stage --- urged on by her husband, who appears more erractic and desparate upon each viewing.
After months with Barack and Hillary, it now reminds me of an "I Love Lucy" episode with Ricky trying to get through his routine while Lucy is chewing the scenery. This is, of course, all because Ricky wouldn't let her be in show.
Barack didn't let Hillary in the show, or to run the show because, as is now evident, Hillary doesn't have the competence to command the national stage without resorting to old and tired ways from day one. I believe she has done no favors in the cause of feminism; in fact, I believe she has let us down.
The irony of Hillary's "feminism gambit" is that Barack is also pro-feminism [ women can be feminists; men can be pro-feminist]. But that aspect of Barack was not permitted to emerge in this primary contest because Hillary was the only ONE who could carry the mantle of feminism.
Calling the kinder, gentler and more authentic...Eleanor Roosevelt!
- Email this page
By tyrdofwaitinMay 12, 2008 - 9:44pmPundits
Happy to hear that I'm not the only one who feels that Olbermann has been complicit in this Clinton pile-on. I used to watch Countdown regularly; partisan as it was, it was a good counterweight to Fox and their ilk. Slowly, but surely, as the campaign wore on, I saw him systematically take her comments and blow them way out of proportion and characterize them as out-of-bounds assaults.
I am not particularly a fan of Hillary's--although either democratic candidate beating McCain will satisfy me--but that's not the point. For months, Olbermann has been militating against Clinton and it's only gotten worse. True, her recent words about her white constituency were unfortunately articulated, but leave it to Olbermann and Matthews to frame her with a hood and a white sheet. Can we also consider the pure temerity of someone who assumes (and we know what happens when we do that) that their take on democratic process is a our take and is a done deal?
Thanks,
Marty
- Email this page
By 5StringsMay 14, 2008 - 12:23pm