TresSugar

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Hillary Clinton

LibertySugar — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 06:00:59 -0700

In last night's Special Comment, Keith Olbermann painted HIllary Clinton as a dangerously passive figure in her own campaign. In his first ever Democrat-focused Special Comment, Keith regretfully reprimanded Clinton for not forcefully distancing herself from Geraldine Ferraro, whom he says dismissed Barack Obama's candidacy as nothing more than an equal-opportunity stunt. He labeled Ferraro's comments as manifestations of cheap, ignorant, and vile racism.

Keith never accused Clinton of being racist herself, instead disparaging her for following the perilous advice of advisers, who have left a mark of racial divisiveness on her candidacy.

I especially enjoyed the "experience montage" in which Keith compared great presidents with slight experience to presidential failures with perfect resumes. Keith effectively made the argument that either Clinton or Obama will inevitably have to present against the super-experienced McCain.

Check out the video for yourself. Do you think Clinton should have been as outraged as Keith by Ferraro's comments? Should she have emphatically distanced herself from the former congresswoman? Does Hillary need to grab the reigns back from her strategists, or should she be judged by the company she keeps?

Was Geraldine Ferraro Out of Line?

CitizenSugar — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:00:05 -0700

It's the comment that's racing around the world as fast as its little legs can carry it: Geraldine Ferraro, former vice presidential candidate, (the first woman to be nominated on a major ticket) said this to an LA newspaper:

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

Obama campaign aide Susan Rice responded by calling for Hillary Clinton to fire Geraldine Ferraro, saying,

That's a really outrageous and offensive comment . . . I think if Senator Clinton is serious about putting an end to statements that have racial implications, that diminish Barack Obama because he's an African-American man, then she ought to really repudiate this comment and make it clear that there's no place in her campaign for people who will say this kind of thing.

While Ferraro has a unique set of experiences in her handbag by which to make observations about the nature of this contest, was her comment in error? For context, she was speaking what she thinks has been going on in the Clinton campaign and the role of the media, which she says, "has been far larger than anything I've seen before." Check out the original article and decide for yourself.

Source

Hug It Out! McCain Brings a New Level of Affection to Politics

CitizenSugar — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:15:20 -0700

It's one small squeeze for woman, one giant leap for hug-kind. I didn't believe the prevalence of the McCain/Palin embrace until I went searching for pictures - and found the mother lode of warm greetings. The second mixed-gender ticket in history is breaking the boundaries of the cold handshake with a now signature - yet brief and businesslike - clinch.

What a change from 1984, when candidate Walter Mondale had a strict look-don't-touch policy with his running mate, Geraldine Ferraro - so much so that he didn't even put palm to back when the two stood side by side on stage, with waving arms high. Ferraro remembers, “people were afraid that it would look like, ‘Oh, my God, they’re dating.’ ”

View 5 Photos ›

While Palin gets the hugs, Cindy gets the smooches - and now the first introduction - when they're all on stage together. To see how that evolved, and who disapproves, read more.

Campaign advisors say all of the affection rules have evolved on the trail naturally, but some etiquette experts disagree. The former White House social secretary under Jacqueline Kennedy says, "He's hugging her to show the world that he’s all for her, and protecting her, but she doesn’t need that."

The McCain/Palin hugs, of course, have a chaste distance to them - or as Christopher Buckley mused, “As the nuns used to say before school dances, 'Leave room for the Holy Ghost.'" Is there enough room? Does all the hugging make you warm and fuzzy - or is he treating (and greeting) her differently because she's a gal?

Source

To Bill or Not to Bill: Are Hillary's Surrogates Helping?

CitizenSugar — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:50:00 -0700

Bill Clinton was in New Orleans over the weekend where he met up for a ground breaking with fellow Katrina activist Brad Pitt, and delivered a speech about the Clinton Global Initiative. Bill grabbed the opportunity to reinforce Hillary's campaign policy on rebuilding New Orleans. Bill called for the need for a full-time Katrina coordinator and said, ""All of this would be better done if there were a federal coordinator. . . and a sustained effort to make sure that government agencies are operating functionally." Bill's appearance made for at least one Hillary surrogate who was on message this weekend.

The pesky reality is that presidential candidates aren't humanly capable of being everywhere at once. Campaigning for years (or so it seems. . .) in a country this big, a candidate will have to outsource a little of the pomp and circumstance once in a while. Ah, the surrogate. Someone who can step in and deliver a message on behalf of the candidate, rally the supporters, and represent the brand. Chelsea's done it, Michelle Obama, even the recent controversial statements by Geraldine Ferraro, all took turns at carrying messages to varying degrees of success.

Bill Clinton might be the most sweet-and-sour bearer of this task. To see what he's been up to, and who he told to "chill out," read more. Bill is beloved but can occasionally let his passion run away with his tongue. He famously stirred things up perhaps for the worse with his Obama "fairy tale" remarks earlier this year. Of course that's the added bonus: besides clearing the candidate's schedule of a few rubber-chicken-dinner fundraisers: the surrogates can say things that the candidate can't - or wants out there without having the dirty hands that go along with it.

He's going to be on Good Morning America this morning, where previews of his exclusive interview have him saying of the tight race between Barack and Hillary, "The voters get to decide. I think we should just celebrate this. If we just chill out here and let all the voters have their say, my gut is it's gonna come out all right." If Bill keeps his surrogacy to positive messages, the voters might just agree.

What do you think? Is Bill a good surrogate, or are his remarks leading Hillary's campaign astray?

Source

Not Worked Up: My Calm Response to the Culture of Outrage

CitizenSugar — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:00:17 -0700

Oh, Keith Olbermann. I think you're pretty smart. I do. I just have one tiny piece of hopefully constructive criticism. Your Special Comment segment, especially the one last night - well, you're becoming like too oft-prescribed antibiotics: ever-increasingly ineffective, while simultaneously making your opponents stronger.

I know that you feel strongly about a lot of things. But I'm beginning to think you can't possibly feel that outraged every single day. Your speeches while fairly well-reasoned, but delivered in your all CAPS LOCK style, are numbing. And it's not just you. Just in the past week or so, Obama's aide resigned over using the word "monster," and Geraldine Ferraro resigned over (arguably, allegedly, in my opinion) critical comments about her opinion of the nature of the media in this election. Have we come to the point where an apology, or reasoned discussion just isn't enough? Do we need blood in every battle? To make the Nancy Grace connection, read more.

While I do think there is a lot in this world to feel strongly about, I think that this fever pitch of reaction to every little thing is a distraction, focusing on the froth of response rather than the facts of the case. We get swept up in the Nancy Grace-ification, in essence responding to her reaction rather than reason. We've built a whole cast of characters around this appetite: Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, anything on Fox News, the Drudge Report, to name but a few.

Are we so inured, so desensitized by the sheer force of the tidal wave of information, that it requires an ever increasing level of in-your-face, shocking, fist-pounding, outrage to snatch out attention? Are we addicted to outrage, this junk food of opinions? Perhaps if we were given quiet space, a moment to consider how we feel about the facts presented, we'd find ourselves with an opinion, maybe outrage of our own - without having to co-opt that which is created to sell the ads. I'd love to have a calm discussion about what you think.

Source

Check This: Does It Matter if the US Has a Female Leader?

CitizenSugar — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:00:57 -0800

While I certainly realize the historical significance of the United States having a viable female candidate for president, I can't help but feel less than excited about it. But it has nothing to do with my feelings about Hillary herself. I'm unfazed by the actual idea of having a female president, and that reaction has forced me to do a little soul searching. Have I begun to take the strides women have made in the cultural landscape for granted? Although I vaguely remember Geraldine Ferraro running for vice president, I do remember it being a big deal. What's changed in the last 24 years? Have I become that cocksure of the equality of women? I have to say no. It's not a feminist issue. It's a US-centric issue.

I'm not excited about it because so many other countries have already done it. That boundary has been broken. For all of my love of country, I do not think that in order for it to count, we have to do it. A woman in the White House is a forgone conclusion, when viewed through the lens of the world. Consider countries like India, Germany, Liberia, and New Zealand - all of them operate with utterly capable female leaders to little fanfare. And frankly, that's the most feminist way to handle the issue. If you're a competent leader, the issue of gender is, and should be moot. So come November, we'll just elect a president. Skirt, optional.

What do you think?

Source

Where I'm Clicking Now: TheHillaryIKnow.com

CitizenSugar — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 10:23:06 -0800

Paid for by Hillary's campaign, this Chicken Soup for the Hillary Voter's Soul features a cute roundup of video anecdotes from friends, colleagues, public figures (like Geraldine Ferraro! Wesley Clark!) and voters, all giving testimony about their experiences with the Junior Senator from New York. Met her? Surf on over and make a vid of your own.