The Clintons: I’ve always been under “Slick Willy’s” spell; damned if he isn’t a personable fellow. And I use the term “Slick Willy” admiringly. I may not like his actions (alleged and otherwise), but he’s got more wriggle than a bait worm with a sharp hook closing in on his ass.
Not my first choice for president, but I give him his due.
His wife, OTOH, I have no real opinion on, not being a citizen of New York, other than to say that her mode of public speaking turns me off. She speaks slowly and loudly, and nods a lot as is to invite agreement, which is a trick of someone trying to sell you something, and talking down to you while doing so.
It’s a trait former VP Gore (and plenty of others FTM, from all sides of the spectrum) shared, to a lesser degree, and one of my (few) bones with him.
Just to keep things even, either W should listen to his speechwriter, or get another. His public commentary seems to me to be shallow and geared to the sound-bite mentality.
C’mon: we’re not all morons out here! We can take big words and complex concepts. It’s another facet of salesmanship: keep it short, simple and project a confidence bordering upon arrogance.
It either displays his (and his administration’s) contempt for the average American, or his limitations as a speaker. Neither bodes well for a public figure.
Well, I wasn’t exactly giving an opinion. I was describing actual articles that I personally read over a lengthy period that goes back to 1968. (As a liberal UC Berkely grad student, I registered Republican in order to vote for George Christopher in the gubinatorial primary, because press reports had convinced me that Reagan was such a danger.)
I know that I could look for cites here on the net or to find various Reagan biographies that give detail. However, this issue doesn’t motivate me to that level of energy. Also, we’re off in a bit of a hijack…
I should think that my personal memories would be admissible contributions to GDs. I’m understand that they will get less weight than specific cites would.
december you’ve been called on cites before, frequently. A suggestion - when you’re about to post something and you’re thinking ‘I remember that…’ - look it up first please? It’ll save so much band width - the rest of us saying “cite” you saying it’s what you remember, us showing you’re mistaken, you half back peddling (by the way, a link to Rush’ home page brings it out of the ‘obscure’ category).
C’mon, folks, you’re wasting your time trying to get a cite for a statement of opinion. The only cites that it is likely possible to get are similar statements of opinion from places like National Review or American Spectator. One common trait of the hard right seems to be (OK, IMHO) that any and all criticism of Reagan or other Republicans was and is unfair and excessive, while any and all criticism of Democrats is barely a start. Does that summarize it?
Now, on the other hand, if there’s some study that actually counted articles, and weighted them by page views, etc. then we might have something. Without that, we can dismiss the posts in question as simple whining. But let’s not waste time demanding cites, not in GD.
Does anyone remember the famous Reagan quote that went something like this:
He was actually doing something like giving a sound level check through a microphone prior to a speech, and some reporter quoted him.
Does anyone vaguely remember that?
While I didn’t see the speech in question (I listened to it on the radio), it’s altogether possible that Sen. Clinton didn’t realize that she was the focus of a cameraman.
That isn’t really an excuse; she’s a public figure, and as such should be aware that at any given time she’s being photographed and/or quoted. But considering the context of the speech, is it unreasonable to suppose that, at any given moment, the focus would be upon the speaker: the President of the United States?
Nitpicking an unclear expression, or extrapolating significant meaning from non-verbal communication, is tricky at best; just look at the level of misunderstanding that takes place here on the SDMB.
I guess I feel that we have bigger things to worry about right now than divining grandiose motives from a facial expression captured at an unguarded moment, without having the telepathy to read her mind and divine the real meaning behind it.
Just because something can’t be (or hasn’t been) discretely quantified doesn’t necessarily mean it becomes a matter of personal opinion.
If december’s gonna make the unqualified statement that Reagan was “viciously attacked” by the mainstream media while president, it’s no more legitimate just because he ascribes it to his memory and is too lazy to look up any supporting evidence. I agree with you, Elvis, that publications like National Review or American Spectator are probably of the opinion that almost any press criticism of Reagan was unjustified, just as The Progessive or The Nation likely feel that any defense of Reagan or positive press regarding his policies are not supported. But we don’t judge general claims by the outliers. december could very easily have dug around and tried to find specific articles from mainstream sources–like the Times or the Post or Wall Street Journal–that promulgated the “vicious attacks” he remembered. Such articles may even exist–no media outlet is the Borg. But I’ve offered an extensive (though qualitative) review of the press’s attitude towards Reagan which includes extensive quotations from the people who were actually, like, there. This review shows (to my satisfaction, anyway) that if anything, the mainstream press generally was nicer to Reagan than they had been to past presidents.[sup]*[/sup] Given that, I feel perfectly obliged to ask december for a cite regarding his claims to the contrary.
If december had said, “I think Reagan was treated viciously by the press,” then there’s no use asking for a cite. It’s his personal perspective; his opinion. He didn’t do that, though–he made a statement of historical fact. I’m gonna call him on that because this is GD.
And I’m still calling him on it.
[sup]*[/sup][sub]The book puts forth the proposition that this gentleness toward Reagan by much of the media was due in part to the perceived frustration of the American people with all the negativity directed at the White House–for good reasons–in the Nixon, Ford, and Carter years. Just as Reagan styled his '84 campaign “It’s Morning in America” to restore the public’s faith in the nation, so did the media–this theory goes–try not to fall into the same gloomy, rabid watchdog role it had played in the 70s. Hertsgaard also quotes Bradlee about the Post’s particular reaction to Reagan becoming president: “[H]ere comes a really true conservative…And we are known–though I don’t think justifiably–as the great liberals. So, [we thought] we’ve got to really behave ourselves here. We’ve got to not be arrogant, make every effort to be informed, be mannerly, be fair. And we did this. I suspect in the process that this paper and probably a good deal of the press gave Reagan not a free ride, but they didn’t use the same standards on him that they used on Carter and on Nixon.”[/sub]
Bill is walking around manhattan telling everybody (who will listen to him), that he really planned to take out Bin Laden when HE was president! Clinton’s ego is really frustrated that he never had a crisis on his hands-he really feels that he will be robbed of his place in history ny George Bush. talk about sour grapes! Shows you what a cardboard facade was Bill Clinton-no scruples, no character, and a hungry ego to boot!
I don’t know how to get San Francisco Chronicle for the year 1968 on the web. In fact, it’s my impression that in order to even get recent back copies of newspapers, one must register and pay a fee.
Can my critics tell me how to get this data. I suppose I could try the public library, but I’d like to know if it’s available on the web.
Quick question, december. What does the press coverage of Reagan in 1968 have to do with the temperature of spit in Iowa? As far as I know, I’m not disputing that you may have been moved to register Republican to help defeat the bad ol’ gubernatorial candidate. Neither here nor there, my friend. Unless you’d like to file an amended complaint making no further claim concerning the press during Reagan’s presidency? (Ye gods, law school’s starting to take effect…)
Or, in other words, save your research skills. 1960s Chronicles don’t say squat about the discussion at hand.
(If you do want to go to the library, however, I’d humbly suggest that you pick up a copy of the book I’ve been recommending…)
I’d dearly like to know what you guys are talking about. Could I have a link to a video or a still of Ms. Clinton so I can see her facial expressions for myself?
Okay, less than a year after the Shrub steals his way into the White House, the World Trade Center is destroyed and the Pentagon badly damaged by terrorist aircraft.
It was on his watch. Why didn’t he stop it?
He should be impeached!!!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Anyone participating in the bash-the-Clintons-fest above who thinks any element of the above is just slightly unfair to President Bush might look in the mirror, and begin practicing what they preach.
If you were to, say, take issue with the Shrub’s facial tick, and said you really wished he’d get it under control when he’s addressing the nation on such grave and important matters, and then used that as a way in to demonstrate a larger point about how you lacked some confidence in his self-control and questioned his ability to lead in these tough times, I’d agree with you.
Or say you took issue with his hand gestures, arguing that they looked terribly staged to demonstrate some sort of inclusiveness and you thought it was phony and contrived and it worried you that he was so obviously transparent.
“Oh, let it go,” someone would post. “What’s wrong with you? We have more important things just now than bashing our president’s hand gestures! LET IT GO!”
As I hope I indicated already, I think you or me or anyone else has the perfect right to evaluate and criticize George Bush or Hillary Clinton, or anyone else in the midst of all this.
Doing so isn’t unpatriotic. Demanding polticians turn in good performances isn’t misguided.
Actually, I don’t think you’re disagreeing with me on this.
Maybe I should post a “What’s really scary about the Shrub?” thread.
And? The claim of yours to which I originally objected concerned the Reagan’s treatment by the press during his presidency and beyond; I’ve said nothing about how he was covered as a gubernatorial candidate, and it’s completely immaterial–especially since the sources I quote give reasons for Reagan’s favorable treatment as president which are specifically tied to a) the state of the nation in the 1980s and b) the mastery with which Reagan’s presidential coterie handled the media.
So speak to me not of 1968 newspapers. Support your original claim, abandon it, or shut the hell up.