In 1988, were the two held up to the same standard.
No, because that wasn't the case in 1988. It is the case in 2008 and one of the candidates is a woman. It's the woman who has experience. It's the woman who has been popular with the Democratic Party for years. Her name is Hillary Clinton but a funny thing happened during the race for the presidential nomination.
Hillary has 'negatives'. That's what we were told. Republicans don't like her, we are told. She is, they say, divisive.
"They" are the same non-stars of Little Media who spent years lecturing that Democrats needed to lead. They lectured that Democrats needed to stop worrying about how they were seen by the Republicans and take actual stands.
Yet their candidate of choice, Barack Obama, has a run a campaign that has disrespected the Democratic Party repeatedly. He's praised Ronald Reagan, fawned over him. The closest thing to a 'plan' or 'platform' he has is the claim that he will put 'divisiveness' behind us.
How he plans to do that is never addressed. Judging by his actions thus far, he would most likely do it by attacking Democrats (as with his sneer at "Tom Hayden Democrats") and his praise for Republicans (Ronald Reagan, party of ideals, etc.). But maybe he has another approach? Maybe he thinks he can brainwash Republicans the same way he has brainwashed so many Democrats?
Basic realities are that Hillary Clinton is a fighter and Barack Obama has never demonstrated once that he's capable of a fight.
Which makes him the perfect choice for Little Media because they can't fight for anything. It's not just that they can't fight for an end to the illegal war, they can't fight period. Along comes the candidate they created a cult of personality around and they're banking that, like the current White House occupant, he can breeze into office. They're banking on that because they think it's the easier road.
Last week, Michelle Obama, the candidate's wife, declared that for the first time in her adult life, she was proud of her country. Instead of immediately issuing an apology, both she and her spouse attempted to weasel out of the remarks with Barack Obama taking to the airwaves to explain that what she said wasn't what she meant.
That's been a pattern in the Obama campaign. Meeting with a conservative editorial board, he praises Ronald Reagan and then, as the should-have-been-expected reaction among Democrats takes hold (outrage over his comments), there are various excuses offered that all boil down to, "I know what he said but what he meant was . . ."
It's a hallmark of the campaign. Ignore what we said and give us a do-over!
And damned if Little Media hasn't been more than willing to do so.
Over and over.
They stomp their feet, they utilize their echo chamber, they villify those who point out that Barack Obama is a lousy candidate (which he is) and people fall in line or fall silent.
That's not how it's going to work with Republicans. That's not how it will play out in a general election.
They argue that Hillary Clinton is the one the GOP wants the Democrats to pick. To believe that, you have to be a fool or practice prolonged supension of disbelief.
Hillary Clinton is a fighter and has always been a fighter. She walked through all the mud the GOP flung at her. You might have forgotten that mud were it not for the fact that Obama's groupies in Little Media keep flinging it at her today.
Maybe you missed that? If so, you missed a great deal such as the worthless opinions of Farzan Versey which CounterPunch elected to publish under the title "Hillary's Harem" (January 23, 2008). Versey crapped on her keyboard in Mumbai, India. Exactly why the hell should anyone care what someone who won't be voting in the election has to say? Why the hell should anyone care what 'insight' Versey gleens from far, far, far away?
Versey's 'insights' are questionable in every regard including her claim that Bill Clinton "became the reigning sex symbol due to her" -- her being Monica Lewinsky. Though Versey's body lives in India, who knows where her mind lives? An outpost many galaxies away for her to claim that Bill Clinton was ever "the reigning sex symbol" for any reason.
On Paula Jones, Versey 'shared' this 'knowledge': "Paula Jones, another one of his trophies, later tried to cash in on the liaison by posing for a centrefold; she said she did it for her kids. The moral brigade was out with their 'tsk, tsk', quite forgetting that Linda Tripp squealed, the lawyers got a good deal, books were written, and Bill continued to be president." Linda Tripp squealed?
Versey doesn't know what she's writing about. That's not surprising since she's not a writer living in America. Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Claire (longtime, malignant Clinton Haters) were happy to print it -- remember that the next time Cockburn decides he wants to lecture Truthout about journalistic standards. Linda Tripp didn't "squeal" a thing on Paula Jones. Jones outed herself after an American Spectator article (with no known connection to Tripp) mentioned a "Paula." She wanted to sue for defamation of character. Linda Tripp had nothing to do with Paula Jones. Versey doesn't know what she's talking about and so low are the standards at CounterPunch that actual facts and knowledge didn't matter. It just mattered that they had a woman to smear Hillary Clinton with. It just mattered that some idiotic female was willing to say Hillary "owes" any future as president to "these women" (Jones and Monica Lewinsky). It's the craziest pile of stink you've ever read and it doesn't even pass the most basic of fact checks but the column runs because it's a way to slime Hillary with right-wing talking points.
From time to time, one of the Little Media 'voices' who couldn't get work in a real profession (we know that doesn't help you narrow them down since the bulk could never work in real journalism) will say, "We don't want to relive the Clinton era."
And they usually then proceed to do just that by repeating right-wing negatives and lies. They don't want to 're-live' it. They didn't live through it in real time. In real time, they were carving up Bill and Hillary Clinton. They plead that they don't have it in them to go through defending another Clinton -- so weak are they.
And then they want the Democratic Party to stand up and fight. They want the Dems in Congress to take action. But they choose a candidate (Obama) who is not a fighter and they choose him because they think (hope?) he will be the easier path.
Hopefully you grasp the inconsistency at play. "We don't want to defend Hillary! Stand up Dems in Congress!"
They want Dems to stand up but they can't stand up themselves. They can't even bother to work up their own attacks on Hillary and, instead, fall back on the GOP slurs of the 90s. They want other people to be fighters, they just don't want to fight themselves. And they don't want a candidate who can fight. They want pretty words -- even if they are purloined words.
They run from anyone who fights (always) and claims a "fresh start" is needed while also lamenting the lack of strength in Democrats.
This year they've bet the farm -- and it's always someone else's farm, never their own -- on the "fresh start" of Obama. This is the same 'independent' media that runs like cowards whenever strength is needed. Sometimes, if Noam Chomsky has endorsed someone, they'll rush to offer some sort of weak ass defense. Ward Churchill, without an endorsement, is left on his own.
You need to grasp how pathetic these beggars are and you need to grasp it when they're begging for your money. What do they do with it?
What they did with it in 2007 and 2008 was slant the coverage and try to rip apart a woman.
There's nothing wrong with people holding Hillary Clinton to a standard -- if it's a fair standard. But the same ones willing to trot out everything (including the lies about the death of Vince Foster) to destroy Hillary rush to tell you that Obama stealing the words of others is "okay" because he only stole from a friend. (A friend and a Democrat, something that should give all voters pause.) They want to insist that Antoin "Tony" Rezko is a non-story while even going to the well on the faux scandal of Whitewater. They want to insist that Obama's "present" votes -- used on difficult issues -- in the Illinois legislature don't matter. They want to insist that even when he has not only missed many votes and failed to chair his committees in hearings.
They want to argue that the Iran resolution this summer proved something. Hillary Clinton voted in favor of it. They argue it's the same as the Iraq resolution in 2002 (it's not). And it's there that you find most clearly that lack of standards. The increasingly loony Stephen Zunes is the best example but they've all repeated this pattern: "Hillary bad to vote for it! Barack opposed to it!"
That's not reality. It is a double-standard. Obama ducked that vote. He was in DC and he was given a reminder of the vote. Obama elected not to vote. But Zunes and the other liars of Little Media leave that point out.
It's a double-standard. It was so successful that Obama was able to use it publicly. He was able to point to that vote in debates. And the very obvious fact that he'd missed the vote, that he'd chosen not to cast a vote flies out the window.
Had Obama voted against it, there might be a case in the "Hillary bad to vote for it! Barack opposed to it!" nonsense. But they can't do that. So they leave that out or, if pressed, state that Barack Obama spoke out against it. If it mattered to him, he would have voted.
It's a double-standard and they've practiced it non-stop.