[A] synthetic product leeched of most human qualities. -- Frank Rich, on how Hillary Clinton is being marketed, Feb. 10, 2008.
If Frank Rich is the voice of elite liberal opinion, Hillary Clinton is in deep, deep trouble. How many folks on the Upper West Side and reasonable facsimiles thereof from Boston to Madison to LA will be opening their hearts -- or credit cards -- to Hillary after reading Rich's stunning indictment of Clinton and her campaign this morning?
The jumping-off point for Rich's column is the live prime-time special the night before Super Tuesday that the Clinton campaign conducted. Flashing his theater-critic roots, Rich panned it as a "boring" "pseudo-event," noting that "some in attendance appeared to trance out." But if the staging was bad, the substance was much, much worse in Rich's view. For he claims that it reflected nothing less than Clinton playing from a "thick deck of race cards."
Writes Rich [emphasis added]:
In its carefully calibrated cross section of geographically and demographically diverse cast members — young, old, one gay man, one vet, two union members — African-Americans were reduced to also-rans. One black woman, the former TV correspondent Carole Simpson, was given the servile role of the meeting’s nominal moderator, Ed McMahon to Mrs. Clinton’s top banana. Scattered black faces could be seen in the audience. But in the entire televised hour, there was not a single African-American questioner, whether to toss a softball or ask about the Clintons’ own recent misadventures in racial politics.
The Clinton camp does not leave such matters to chance. This decision was a cold, political cost-benefit calculus. In October, seven months after the two candidates’ dueling church perorations in Selma, USA Today found Hillary Clinton leading Mr. Obama among African-American Democrats by a margin of 62 percent to 34 percent. But once black voters met Mr. Obama and started to gravitate toward him, Bill Clinton and the campaign’s other surrogates stopped caring about what African-Americans thought.
I must say, the fact that the tightly-scripted Clinton campaign didn't permit a single question from a black viewer during an hour-long event is nothing short of shocking.
Additional excerpts [emphasis added]:
[T]his show was a dramatic encapsulation of how a once-invincible candidate ended up in a dead heat, crippled by poll-tested corporate packaging that markets her as a synthetic product leeched of most human qualities.
Less than two weeks ago she was airlifted into her own, less effective version of “Mission Accomplished.” Instead of declaring faux victory in Iraq, she starred in a made-for-television rally declaring faux victory in a Florida primary that was held in defiance of party rules, involved no campaigning and awarded no delegates. As Andrea Mitchell of NBC News said, it was “the Potemkin village of victory celebrations.”
The Clinton campaign might be an imploding Potemkin village itself were it not for the fungible profits from Bill Clinton’s murky post-presidency business deals.
[T]he wholesale substitution of Hispanics for blacks on the Hallmark show is tainted by a creepy racial back story. Last month a Hispanic pollster employed by the Clinton campaign pitted the two groups against each other by telling The New Yorker that Hispanic voters have “not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.” Mrs. Clinton then seconded the motion by telling Tim Russert in a debate that her pollster was “making a historical statement.” It wasn’t an accurate statement, historical or otherwise. It was a lie, and a bigoted lie at that, given that it branded Hispanics, a group as heterogeneous as any other, as monolithic racists.
The question now is how much more racial friction the Clinton campaign will gin up if its Hispanic support starts to erode in Texas, whose March 4 vote it sees as its latest firewall. Clearly it will stop at little. That’s why you now hear Clinton operatives talk ever more brazenly about trying to reverse party rulings so that they can hijack 366 ghost delegates from Florida and the other rogue primary, Michigan, where Mr. Obama wasn’t even on the ballot. So much for Mrs. Clinton’s assurance on New Hampshire Public Radio last fall that it didn’t matter if she alone kept her name on the Michigan ballot because the vote “is not going to count for anything.”
[A] Clinton combine so ruthless that it risked shredding three decades of mutual affection with black America to win a primary.
A race-tinged brawl at the convention, some nine weeks before Election Day, will not be a Hallmark moment. As Mr. Wilkins reiterated to me last week, it will be a flashback to the Democratic civil war of 1968, a suicide for the party no matter which victor ends up holding the rancid spoils.
Coming as it does the morning after Hillary absorbed the blow of devastating defeats from Louisiana to Nebraska to Washington State, has Frank Rich administered the knock-out punch?
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.





[A] synthetic product leeched of most human qualities. -- Frank Rich, on how Hillary Clinton is being marketed, Feb. 10, 2008. 









Editor at Large

Comments Policy
Sir Edmund Hillary Clinton is the Antichrist, dude.
February 10, 2008 - 09:19 ET by thoridflyNo need to wonder, guess, or speculate ... she's it.
That would make her at least the 3rd antichrist to achieve the office of the President (if she wins).
as tears go by
February 10, 2008 - 09:20 ET by CatherwoodI just read on story linke on Drudge that says again Hillary has cried on the campaign trail. Let us all understand one thing with blinding-light clarity: she has no tears. After she loses the nomination to the new king of Camelot, maybe we could make her chief torturer at Guantomino. I'm sure her anger taken out on the prisoners would cause them to confess. she would enjoy that.
Funny how on the Democrat
February 10, 2008 - 09:21 ET by sublight68Funny how on the Democrat side the candidates aren't evaluated in terms of their principles or policy positions, but rather by the groups they're perceived to cater to or ignore -- blacks, hispanics, women, "the poor", etc.
It's all about which groups they can stereotype, pander to and turn against the other candidate. There's no appeal on an intellectual level, it's all just empty emotional rhetoric.
Hey, the Clintons have
February 10, 2008 - 09:28 ET by motherbeltHey, the Clintons have always loved to showcase their "diversity" by having every possible group represented in every gathering...it's only fitting that she get hoist on her own petard...
Someone on her staff will certainly pay for not making sure a black person got to ask a question.
MB: perhaps, but Rich
February 10, 2008 - 09:32 ET by Mark FinkelsteinMB: perhaps, but Rich believes it was not a mistake but an absolutely calculated decision to write-off the black vote in favor of Hispanics.
→ Mark
February 10, 2008 - 09:40 ET by Cool ArrowAre there yet people who don't realize this is exactly the case?
♣ a seal
Amnesty preview
February 10, 2008 - 09:58 ET by masslibertarianOf course it is, and if McCain-Kennedy hadn't been derailed last summer, it would be an even more effective strategy.
This should be a wake-up call for blacks who have supported the Democrats for years even though this support is completely taken for granted, other than occasional lip service.
Hispanics should also take note, because the same thing will eventually happen to them if they slavishly commit themselves to the Democrat party.
I agree. Because for the
February 10, 2008 - 09:47 ET by sublight68I agree. Because for the Dems it's not about bringing together voters from all backgrounds based on ideas, but rather it's about lumping people into groups and trying to appeal to those groups as homogeneous voting blocs.
Dem's and diversity
February 10, 2008 - 10:52 ET by docbTHE POINT was that THE CLINTON"S threw the AFRICAN AMERICANS under the bus--not the Dem's...They began immediately to split the vote when Obama became viable. I have been a Dem for many years and we have been inclusive for that whole time.
It is the blind ambition of the clintons that have brought triangulation, politics of personal destruction, and slime to the nation and laid it at our feet.
We must stop this despicable pair who will do ANYTHING to win. As a woman, it sickens me to have to realize that she is no feminist, a poor MOM who uses her child and when called on it blames the crude messenger. She is a co- dependent spouse of a serial philanderer who destroys other people to further the illusion of a sham relationship, and SHE IS THE BEST WE CAN PUT FORWARD FOR FIRST FEMALE! PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.=-----NOT!
Let's stop the madness..Vote for ANYONE but THEM.
docb,
February 10, 2008 - 15:29 ET by R D HelmLOL-Are you sure you are a dem?
Nice post. :-)
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
He's probably right, Mark.
February 10, 2008 - 09:54 ET by motherbeltHe's probably right, Mark. Another "spade work" subtle signal that blacks are no longer needed?
Wouldn't surprise me at all. A lot of us, in and outside the punditry, saw this coming a long time ago: that they would jettison blacks for the Hispanic vote (thus the speculation that Richardson would be her VP choice). The Clintons' idea of "friends" is whoever can help them. Once they find another friend who can help them more, the previous ally is tossed aside like worn-out shoes. In spite of their blather about "public service" they are the most venal, self-serving politicians I have ever seen in my lifetime.
MB: LARRY KING: You once
February 10, 2008 - 09:55 ET by Mark FinkelsteinMB:
LARRY KING: You once described the Clintons as like tornadoes moving through people's lives. Would you elaborate on that?
JAMES MCDOUGAL: Well, I think I had it on my mind, because we had just had a very destructive tornado at Arkadelphia, which did tremendous damage and killed people and -- there was enormous turbulence, an act of God. And this is how I look at Webb Hubbell and all of these people that have departed just in the past few years. It does. It looks like it's a tornado moving through people's lives. And it spreads them. And there are just people that left flat in the wake of the tornado.
I remember that, Mark. And
February 10, 2008 - 10:25 ET by motherbeltI remember that, Mark. And he should know. The Clintons do move in like a tornado, destroying things, sweeping people up in their turbulence, then eventually flinging them down somewhere else.
Edit: Sometimes that "somewhere else" is in jail.
I too remember this...we
February 10, 2008 - 16:52 ET by bigtimerI too remember this...we can include death here.
James died the in early morning hours on the day of his testimony against the Clintons....if memory serves me correctly.
I know I'm probably missing
February 10, 2008 - 09:23 ET by motherbeltI know I'm probably missing the whole point of the article, and this is probably minor, but this is what hit me between the eyes:
telling The New Yorker that Hispanic voters have “not shown a lot of
willingness or affinity to support black candidates.”.....[ ].... It wasn’t an accurate
statement, historical or otherwise. It was a lie, and a bigoted lie at that, given that it branded Hispanics, a group as heterogeneous as any other, as monolithic racists.
I guess in Frank Rich's mind it's fine to brand white people as monolithic racists....just don't say the same thing about Hispanics (another"protected" group).
I may have missed the point
February 10, 2008 - 09:49 ET by OldSailor88I may have missed the point too, but what I get from it is this. Race isn't mentioned when a republican candidate is being discussed. All I read is what platform they are running on, and how much the conservative base approves or disapproves of said candidate. The only issue involving race that I see being discussed is illegal aliens. When you have to pander to transgendered multi-racial polytheistic vegan tree huggers against the war, you're revealing that you have to dig really deep to find a base to support you.
Stultus est sicut stultus facit
And why you play identity
February 10, 2008 - 09:57 ET by sublight68And why you play identity politics it's easy to get bitten.
A gay person is on stage? OK, Hillary is courting the "gay vote." A black person doesn't ask a question? Well, then Hillary has written off "blacks" in total and they should look elsewhere.
For the Dems, if they don't have a representative from a particular group at every function, then they risk offending the group as a whole.
→ Condescending racist liberals
February 10, 2008 - 09:25 ET by Cool ArrowThis one caught my eye on Drudge. Seems some old crone (Nobel Laureate) decided Obama should bow out because "he will surely be assassinated". Ms. Lessing fails to reveal which left wing organization would do such a thing (Fair Play for Cuba, perhaps?)
But Ms. Lessing's true feelings come out: "It might be calmer if she (Hillary) were to win, and not Obama".
Watch for more of this sort of ("I know what's best for you Barack") condescension.
♣ a seal
Yes, from the same woman
February 10, 2008 - 09:41 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltYes, from the same woman who once said that she "...could kill George Bush", or words very close to that. Tolerant bunch of color-blind do-gooders, aren't they?
-When the Democratic super-delegates choose Hillary over Obama at the convention despite Obama's greater total delegates, will the chant once again be, "Selected, not elected!!" ?
→ Selected not elected
February 10, 2008 - 09:49 ET by Cool ArrowThat chant will be accompanied by fists flung in rage from a crowd of humans whose eyes are opened, as if, for the first time to the true nature of the Plantation lords.
♣ a seal
Does Hillary have any good ponits?
February 10, 2008 - 09:35 ET by Charles B. SimpsonWith each passing day, Sen. Clinton's once adoring liberal base is now taking broadsides at her ideas and campaign strategy. If she is a racist, then what are Obama's minions? The entire Democrat party is drawn along racial lines. Always was and always will be. But now the liberal dirty laundry is being broadcast far and wide; and from their own loyalists-the MSN! So as the Democrats slime each other, causing friction and fracturing with-in the party, the GOP chooses a liberal nominee of their own. What does Clinton, Obama, and McCain have in common-three candidates who will not get my vote.
→ Simpson
February 10, 2008 - 09:42 ET by Cool ArrowThat's the same as saying you voted for all of them.
♣ a seal
Not voting.
February 10, 2008 - 10:50 ET by Charles B. SimpsonCan't do it. Sad but true. I am a voter without a candidate(President election only).
Then you go with a
February 10, 2008 - 16:14 ET by usinkoreaThen you go with a party.
Presidents don't get to dictate policies they want. They are influenced by the Congress and by the places of power within their party.
If you can't pick a person you want to be president from the list, you must go with the party you feel has the better overall platform and policy choices.
usinkorea... I see a
February 10, 2008 - 16:22 ET by Clear thinkerusinkorea...
I see a major problem with your statement "then you go with a party". My party (GOP), but not for long, has a wonderful sounding platform. Too bad they ignore it!
The Conservative movement is about to be reborn.
This will be the first
February 10, 2008 - 10:01 ET by sublight68This will be the first presidential election where I'm not voting FOR a candidate but rather AGAINST one.
I have issues with McCain, immigration being first among them. But I'll grit my teeth and pull the lever with his name on it come November.
What's the alternative? A third party? How'd that work out for Perot and Nader supporters?
Which, as I noted below in
February 10, 2008 - 16:11 ET by usinkoreaWhich, as I noted below in my own comment, makes me look back at Clinton's cabinet picks. There were minorities, but they weren't given power positions. Bush did put power in Powell and Rice's hands. Will that point come out? I haven't seen in the past 8 years.......
→ Ellen Goodman, racist
February 10, 2008 - 10:11 ET by Cool ArrowEllen Goodman's Jan 25th column was particularly repugnant. Goodman, in her usual condescending style proceeds to try another angle to the "Obama's not really all that black" attack.
Old guard MSM is tired of carrying water for Hillary, so they've just opened wide the bigot spigot.
♣ a seal
Obama's sister says, in
February 10, 2008 - 10:33 ET by motherbeltObama's sister says, in that article, that he is black because that is how he has "named" himself. And she says:
Before the first vote, he [Obama] said, "I think that if you can tell people,
'We have a president in the White House who still has a grandmother
living in a hut on the shores of Lake Victoria and has a sister who's
half-Indonesian, married to a Chinese-Canadian,' then they're going to
think he may have a better sense of what's going on in our lives and in
our country. And they'd be right."
I said this before in another thread, and got all kinds of hell for it; but I will say it again: then why does he emphasize the black?
Why doesn't he tout the richness of the varied ethnicity and unity exemplified by his own extended family?
Because he can't win
February 10, 2008 - 10:39 ET by sublight68Because he can't win pandering for the Chinese-Canadian vote.
→ mb
February 10, 2008 - 10:42 ET by Cool ArrowI don't see Obama shoving his ethnicity in anyone's face. To me, it seems a subject he is forced to face or deflect at every turn.
♣ a seal
I didn't say he shoves it
February 10, 2008 - 11:37 ET by motherbeltI didn't say he shoves it in anyone's face.
Another thing continues to
February 11, 2008 - 13:52 ET by lotrAnother thing continues to puzzle me about this: I thought Obama was half white. In truth, he is equally both of African and European descent. Why this downplaying of his European lineage?
Frank Rich could write for the NB'ers except ...
February 10, 2008 - 12:15 ET by JayTeeGee, Frand Rich coul dbe an NB writer in his Critique of Hillary's campaign -EXCEPT- Rick jumps into the Liberal Kos mode and gets a little bit UGLY in this venomnous description.
NB does critize the Clintons, but NEVER do they take out the Machete and start chopping like this Dude. If a post like this was put up on NB, we would reccommend the poster get a medical evaluation from the nearest Shrink.
Rich is predicting a Dem "race-tinged brawl at the convention", and "brazenly about trying to reverse party rulings" and on and on...I guess it takes one to know one, but this is pretty ugly stuff.
I wish I could take out a Life insurance policy on Rich, but I think the Clintons will only try to Cripple him and put him in the un-employment line as an Example for other Liberal critiquers to see.
It's not nice to mess with "synthetic product leeched of most human qualities"...Duhhh
I dunno..
February 10, 2008 - 13:54 ET by dervish"...Brazenly ... trying to reverse party rulings" seems like a pretty concise description of the situation, to me.
If he wanted to wield the machete, he'd have asked how someone who was supposedly near bankruptcy seven years ago can, after one Senate term, casually toss $5 million of her own cash into her campaign fund. And if he was a NewsBuster, he'd ask why no one seems to be interested in where the money came from.
I have always marvelled at
February 10, 2008 - 16:03 ET by usinkoreaI have always marvelled at the media and intellectual America's ability to paint Clinton as a great friend to minorities and Bush as an enemy ---- depsite the fact Bush put two black people in charge of two of the most powerful departments in our government - and thus two of the most powerful positions in the entire world -- and Rice was a woman to boot. What powerful cabinet positions did Clinton dole out? Oh. I forgot. According to the media and people like Belefonte, Rice and Powell sold out and thus don't count....
The dems have always been racists
February 10, 2008 - 16:57 ET by Not AmusedI don't know if Rich speaks for elite dems, per say, but look, the democrat party has always been a racist bunch of hypocrites. They got the black vote through the most cynical means possible: by being the party of government handouts. They have spent the past 40 years convincing black America that they are the nation's dependent children, and that only dems will be good mommies and daddies with full cookie jars and band-aids for their boo-boos. I believe it was Bill Bennett who called it the "soft bigotry of low expectations." Now that the children want a life of their own, people like the Clintons – and Rich, for that matter – don't know what to do. They have never, ever meant to include blacks in national decision-making in any meaningful way because they simply do not believe that blacks are capable of functioning as adults. For God's sake, look at Bill Clinton's cabinet vs. Bush's. Hillary's sputtering around Obama because she doesn't know what to say because what she wants to say is, "Who the hell do you think you are? I gave you my permission to come to the party, but I never said you could dance. Now get behind me where you belong, and mommy will get you some cheese or a WIC coupon." Needless to say, I'm getting some popcorn and settling in for the show…
Not Amused
February 10, 2008 - 19:31 ET by Jerry MackExcellent summation of the situation. Just one more point. The Charles Rangles, ect that support Hillary are upset with and fear Obama because he is doing it without them. If he wins the nomination they become powerless in the black community. If they have not already. This could be the end of the old guard.
JM,
February 10, 2008 - 21:31 ET by R D HelmThis could be the end of the old guard.
And good riddance.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
That's awfully cynical, and
February 10, 2008 - 19:41 ET by balboaThat's awfully cynical, and I can't disagree more. I'm sure that there are dem politicians who think the way you say, but I believe that in establishing welfare and affirmative action as well as other programs that most dems' first instinct was to help, not hinder.
And I don't think someone's cabinet is any indication of a person's racial beliefs.
Forgive my sarcasm, but,
February 10, 2008 - 20:28 ET by Not AmusedForgive my sarcasm, but, ummmm, if appointing blacks to important, high-profile, policy-making cabinet positions – as Bush did – isn't indicative of one's belief that blacks have something to contribute, and if failing to make such appointments – as Clinton did – isn't indicative of one's belief that blacks have little to contribute, then I don't know what does.
NA, Wee Willy did make Ron Brown his Commerce Secretary.
February 10, 2008 - 21:38 ET by R D HelmAlthough I have never quite figured out exactly what it was Billy Jeff thought was so amusing at his funeral.
And there was "Dr." Joycelyn Elders, too. Remember her? Nuttier than a fruitcake, she was.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Establishing Welfare?
February 10, 2008 - 21:03 ET by Del DolemonteActually, the Dems' establishing welfare was to keep people perpetually dependent on the government. At least a couple of generations of Americans have been lost as a result.
no one is believing the spin
February 10, 2008 - 21:07 ET by docbAMEN...she has nothing to say.. she has used all her chips to discredit Obama and no one is buying it. The clintons threw the AfAm under the bus not the DEMOCRATS.
exercise
February 10, 2008 - 23:20 ET by WesenFrank Rich just bitch slapped Hillary. Way to go.