Strangely, this particular column was not picked up by a single newspaper, which leads to the:
**Second question: Why was this column spiked? **
Three plausible reasons: [ol][li]It used the forbidden phrase “Blow Job.”[]Its harsh tone.[]Its anti-Clinton message.[/ol]It would be interesting to find out just how the column came to be universally spiked. Did someone contact each of the newspapers and suggest that it not be published? Did each separate newspaper decide independently to reject it? Was there some group discussion among newspaper publishers?[/li]
Here are some excerpts.
Clearly, December, you’ve been reading your blogs again. Here’s the problem – we have not! So your assertion that this column has been picked for spiking by the world’s newspapers looks like it has been made from whole cloth. You offer no evidence.
Presumably, whatever blog you’re swiping this from had the goods. So how many newspapers carry her column on a regular basis? Or do they only pick her up when she says something interesting (this is not – every administration’s formers write books – no exceptions).
P.S. As a general rule, not every stupid blogspot is worth a great debate. Consider that, please.
I really don’t see THAT much focus on the Clintons these days. Yes, both have books coming. That’s hardly unusual, everybody who ever gets famous ends up with a book deal. Frankly, I don’t see much focus on the Democratic Party at all! ::cue December weeping::
The Clintons HAVE NOT been all over the news, rather it has been Shrub and his band of merry idiots, who have been bleating and screeching about Saddam/Axis of Evil etall who have been all over the press.
The only press that has been given to the Clintons has been the usual rightwing gang of CrapHats, ie; Rush/O’Reilly/Coulter/Hannity etall, and all they do is bitch and bleat and complain about “How dare (insert name of Clinton here) do (insert innocuous and everyday act here)!! Shrub never did anything like that. Why can’t (insert name of Clinton here) just go away!!”
Or they throw out yet another lie about the Clintons and it gets picked up by the (so called) liberal media and passed off as truth.
Give it a rest, December, 'cause you won’t even come within 5 miles of winning this one.
I picked this up from Rush Limbaugh’s radio show. After reading your post, I double-checked by putting a phrase from the article into google news. In fact, one paper has now picked up the article, the Nashville City Paper. They cut out the phrase with the words “Blow Job”.
Estrich’s biography says “She writes a syndicated column that appears twice weekly in newspapers across the country, and is a contributing editor of USA Today.” I didn’t find a list of papers in which her column appears, so I do not know the actual number fo them.
Thank you for the advice. Perhaps this wasn’t worth a thread.
Back to the OP: One can look at history and perhaps see how a Presidential candidate can be hurt by his predecessor. Adlai Stevenson never caught on. Of course, Ike was very popular, but perhaps many Democrats still thought longingly of Truman. OTOH Clinton in 1992, Carter in 1980, and JFK in 1960 had no Democrat competing with them for center stage. (Well, actually a number of liberal Dems still loved Adlai Stevenson in 1960). These 3 candidates had fairly limited backgrounds, but won their elections. One can speculate that they may have been helped by not having to outdo some top leader of their own party. OTOH I can remember a long period when every Democratic candidate was compared unfavorably with Teddy Kennedy, so strong was the Kennedy mystique.
Are the Clintons all over the news? Marley23 and Payton’s Servant correctly point out that Bush has been dominating the news. However, the question is, which Democrats are most in the news? I’ve seen a recent poll showing that Hillary is the most popular Presidential candidate among Democrats even though she’s not a candidate. In part, that’s because she has kept herself in the public eye. E.g., she chose to make the public announcement when Moynahan died, rather than defer to Charles Schumer, the Senior Senator from NY. Bill Clinton continues to give advice publicly, which is something most ex-Presidents have not done. Of course, Lewinsky’s appearance as a TV host keeps her scandal alive, as does the recent news about JFK and his intern, as well as Gov. Bob Wise, who just confessed to being unfaithful. So, I think the Clintons are currently getting more coverage than any other Democrat.
Well, there’s plenty of time before the election. I do think that unless the Dems can get the Clintons into the background well before Nov., 2004, their candidate will be diminished.
I would like to see more focus on the Clintons. The only people paying attention to them are rabid conservatives, who find them perversely irresistable. While the Democrats move thoughtfully and deliberately into the primary season, the opposition will be focussed on Bill & Hillary until it’s too late, and the Democratic nominee emerges and knocks the stuffing out of GW.
I actually caught some of Rush’s show that December is referencing.
It was quite odd, a Bizarro World rant, where Rush, in his “I’m being so thouuughful and deliiiiberaattte” muuusings muses about how the Clinton’s staying in the Spotlight would hurt – yes hurt! the Democrats, who are of course on the run unfocused, out of control, looking for a rudder of any kind from Big Bill. Well, my dear friends, (chortle) I must say these odd contortions of the Liberal Left are just so puzzling.
Mmmmkay, Rush. Clinton hasn’t been heard from in how long? And Hillary is keeping a pretty low profile. Obsess much, Rush (December) ?
And now we see that Rush picked this all up from a poorly written rejected column, and December picked it up from Rush and December wants to pass it on as The Clintons! Why Won’t They Go Away!!
One might wonder the same about some others in this punditry meme infection.
Always a bastion of calm, rational, moderate discourse.
For pete’s sake, December, she’s a United States Senator! Her job is in the public eye! She’s not doing anything abnormal. Is she a publicity hound? Sure, they all are. But you don’t need to trump up charges about hurting the party for that to be true.
I’d say the Democratic party is hurt more by having a extreme radical as their House leader, but lucky for the Dems, Polosi doesn’t get alot of sound bites on cable news for some reason.
The reason Rush, and I’m sure december as well love to point out these columns is because they like reassuring themselves that the Dems have internal problems. I’m sure they do, so do the Republicans, both of those parties are so big that there’s bound to be internal dissension. Heck, the Libertarians had a all-out power struggle between the Browne-faction and everybody else, and we’re alot smaller and alot more focused as a party than the Big Two are. The Democrats have held themselves together as a party for 70 years as a collection of special interest groups and ethnic minorities, even when those groups interests clash as often as they don’t, I don’t think any spotlight-hogging by Hillary is going to bring them down.
That’s the way she was discussed when she ran, as being on the far left of the party. But she does seem to keep a mostly low profile these days, so I don’t know how earned that reputation was.
From what I’ve heard - which isn’t a lot either - she hasn’t been much of an extremist. She cast herself as more liberal than her challenger, whose name I can’t recall right now. She’s kept the low profile for one, and stuck fairly close to the (Republican ;)) party line. I don’t recall her challenging Bush very much so far.
I’m still trying to wrap my noggin around the notion that Rush Limbaugh was sooooooooooooooo concerned for the well-being of the Democratic party that he felt he had to rush to its rescue and raise the banner of the dangers of Clinton overexposure. :rolleyes: