On Monday, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) got a "town hall" meeting with a hand-picked audience on "Good Morning America."
But the royal treatment Clinton receives in the mainstream media isn't shared by even some staunch liberals who make ink in the nation's newspapers everyday. Including at least one who pays the bills with the cartoonist's pen, generally liberal artist and blogger Darrin Bell, creator of "Candorville."
It's not the first time Bell has lampooned Clinton, but check out the March 30 installment, where he makes fun of Hillary's penchant for trying to be all things to all constituents, envisioning Clinton trying to pander to a Palestinian-American and an Israeli-American at the same time.
Bell's cartoon follows two days after the March 28 "'South Park," in which Clinton was portrayed unflatteringly, sporting rather large hips (calling to mind radio host Mark Levin's label "Her Thighness" ) and speaking in a faux Southern drawl.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Her "Royal" Thigh
March 30, 2007 - 20:00 ET by Jack BauerHer "Royal" Thighness is better. And more apt.
Oh this is an easy one.Good
March 31, 2007 - 03:10 ET by ApacheIPOh this is an easy one.
Good Morning America is trying to influence the way people vote.
Southpark is trying to make people laugh. They don't care if Her Thighness is portrayed negatively. They are after laughs and not votes.
Was this a rhetorical question?
She may get a hand picked a
March 31, 2007 - 03:16 ET by BlameTheMediaShe may get a hand picked audience, but to even see gwb speak you have to sign a loyalty oath. Whatever.
Why do you revel in a negative portrayal? It doesn't have anything to do with anything.
"She may get a hand pick
March 31, 2007 - 03:40 ET by ApacheIP"She may get a hand picked audience, but to even see gwb speak you have to sign a loyalty oath. Whatever."
I may have missed it, but no one said anything about her having a hand pick audience. Why do you bring that up? It only weakens your position.
President Bush on the other hand, has a national audience whenever he speaks. Have you ever had to sign a "loyalty oath" to hear or read President Bush's remarks?
I didn't think so.
I am normally very polite and cordial to those from the other side of the political spectrum. But your comments are testing me severely. The urge to ridicule the utter ridiculousness of your comments is, I must admit, overwhelming. I hope you appreciate the effort I am putting into not ridiculing your comments. This particular comment, claiming you must sign a "loyalty oath" is particulary tempting. Neigh, I will not succumb to temptation, no matter how sweet.
"Why do you revel in a negative portrayal? It doesn't have anything to do with anything."
Negative portrayal "doesn't have anything to do with anything". Wow! That one almost leaves me speechless. Almost. May I ask if you, purely by chance, have happened to see any of the main stream coverage of Scooter Libby or the firing of 8 US Attorneys?
Think there might just be a tiny bit of negative portrayal there? Do you really think it "doesn't have anything to do with anything"?
On Monday, Sen. Hillary Cli
March 31, 2007 - 03:46 ET by BlameTheMediaOn Monday, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) got a "town hall"
meeting with a hand-picked audience on "Good Morning America."
It's the first line of the blog.
Okay, you win. Hillary got
March 31, 2007 - 03:47 ET by ApacheIPOkay, you win. Hillary got a hand picked audience.
Do you feel better now?
not really
March 31, 2007 - 03:49 ET by BlameTheMedianot really
Yeah, I wouldn't either if
March 31, 2007 - 03:51 ET by ApacheIPYeah, I wouldn't either if I were you. You shot your own argument in the foot. Congratulations. You the man.
Did you sign President Bush
March 31, 2007 - 03:49 ET by ApacheIPDid you sign President Bush' "loyalty oath", or are you completely ignorant to his comments?
I wasn't registered republi
March 31, 2007 - 03:54 ET by BlameTheMediaI wasn't registered republican and couldn't even get that far. didn't I already say that?
"I wasn't registered r
March 31, 2007 - 04:00 ET by ApacheIP"I wasn't registered republican and couldn't even get that far. didn't I already say that?"
No, you said you wouldn't sign a "loyalty oath".
Hmmm... in your mind "registered republican" = "loyalty oath"
You do more to undermine your own argument than I ever could. Please keep talking.
President Bush on the other
March 31, 2007 - 03:48 ET by BlameTheMediaPresident Bush on the other hand, has a national audience whenever he
speaks. Have you ever had to sign a "loyalty oath" to hear or read
President Bush's remarks?
Yes, in Reno Nevada, and I wouldn't so we didn't go in. They also wanted to see that you were registered republican first. I didn't even get that far in the "process."
I was there... the Reno Gazette Journal, from whenever that was a few years back, has a story on it.
Link please.I would *LOVE*
March 31, 2007 - 03:52 ET by ApacheIPLink please.
I would *LOVE* to hear more about this loyalty oath.
I would *LOVE* to share it
March 31, 2007 - 04:00 ET by BlameTheMediaI would *LOVE* to share it with you but you'd probably be more efficient at finding it than I. I'll look... I read the hard copy that morning it came out so this won't be easy.
"... so this won't be
March 31, 2007 - 04:04 ET by ApacheIP"... so this won't be easy."
Of that I am sure. Good luck.
http://www.buzzflash.com/al
March 31, 2007 - 04:03 ET by BlameTheMediahttp://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/10/ale04068.html
there it is
Sorry about the double post.
here's another, not sure of the source, but there are many articles that say the same thing: http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/2004/08/white_republica.htm
Wow. A "news article&
March 31, 2007 - 04:16 ET by ApacheIPWow. A "news article" direct from the DNC and attributable to no particular reporter. Color me shocked.
Tell me the name of the "reporter" that wrote those articles. I want to call him and verify his story.
Here's more. There is a lo
March 31, 2007 - 04:28 ET by BlameTheMediaHere's more. There is a lot out there... before you go shooting your mouth off, read some. There are hundreds of hits on this... have at it.
The Bush campaign has recently been inflating
its campaign rally numbers by 45 to 75 percent. Rally attendees have
also been required to fill out what amounted to a loyalty oath before
receiving event tickets.
The Washington Post, September 9, 2004
The Washington Post, July 31, 2004
I'm sorry. Perhaps I wasn'
March 31, 2007 - 04:38 ET by ApacheIPI'm sorry. Perhaps I wasn't clear. Can you please tell me the name of the reporter? I looked at your link and couldn't find the name of the reporter. I would like to call this "reporter" and verify his bonafides and facts. Thanks.
Please don't reply unless you plan on providing the name of the reporter that witnessed this alleged mandatory "loyalty oath".
I want to take this one step at a time. First, I would like to confirm your initial accusation about a "loyalty oath". To do that, I need to know the name of the reporter.
Thanks.
Republican National
March 31, 2007 - 11:39 ET by BlameTheMediaRepublican National Committee Requires Voters To Sign Loyalty Oaths
Rally-Attendees In New Mexico Were Required To Sign Endorsement
Forms Before Entering Bush-Cheney Rallies. The Republican National Committee
is requiring voters to sign endorsement forms before they attend campaign
rallies featuring Vice President Cheney or President Bush. When Vice
President Dick Cheney spoke on July 31st to a crowd of 2,000 in Rio Rancho,
NM, voters were required to sign an endorsement form in order to receive
a ticket to hear Cheney “Whose vice president is he?” asked a 72-year-old
John Wade. “I just wanted to hear what my vice president had to say,
and they make me sign a loyalty oath.” The form’s endorsement begins,
“I, ___,” requiring individuals to state their name, position, hometown
and state, “do hereby endorse George W. Bush for re-election of the United
States.” Attendees then date and sign the form. A disclaimer box underneath
the signature line states, “In signing the above endorsement you are
consenting to use and release of your name by Bush-Cheney as an endorser
of President Bush.” [Boston Globe, 8/9/04]
You'll have to search for the reporter's name on your own. Here's the publication and the date. Let me know what he says.
Blamer, you leftists who whine about "free speech" love to
March 31, 2007 - 12:03 ET by RJBlamer, you and your comrade leftists who whine about "free speech" love to disrupt conservative speakers, whether they appear on the campaign trail or on college campuses.
Any person with an IQ over double digits knows that calling it a "loyality oath" is just another propaganda talking point originated by the DNC and lapped up by faithful koolaid drinkers. Even if the requirement to state that they are supporters does exist, I don't care. Since it's a campaign rally, and not a government operation, a small group of activists should not be able to deliberately disrupt what the majority want to hear.
find it yourself... i gave
March 31, 2007 - 04:37 ET by BlameTheMediafind it yourself... i gave you the link
If I had more time now I'd search for the article I'm thinking about specific to the RGJ, but can't find it. However, as you've seen, there are many others out there. Call the RNC, they'll tell ya. It really did happen, if that's what you're questioning.
Beyond that, you'll have to do a little reading on your own.
good night
find it yourself... i gav
March 31, 2007 - 04:42 ET by ApacheIPfind it yourself... i gave you the link
Yes, and as I said, the claim comes directly from the DNC and is not attributable to any specific reporter. Isn't that convenient? I can't call anyone and verify their story.
I would be really impressed
March 31, 2007 - 04:56 ET by ApacheIPI would be really impressed if you had a copy of this alleged "loyatly oath".
Or should I assume that everyone presented with the loyalty oath signed it and surrendered it to someone. Of course no one refused to sign and walked out with a copy it. That is unfathomable.
Ergo, you can't possibly point me to a copy of this "loyalty oath".
Can you?
Have you ever noticed that
March 31, 2007 - 05:08 ET by ApacheIPHave you ever noticed that conservatives will use easily verifiable direct quotes and liberals have a collection of unnamed sources? Kind of odd, isn't it?
apache -- you'll also note
March 31, 2007 - 05:56 ET by Jack Bauerapache -- you'll also note that even the unnamed sources are usually a load of opinions masquerading as facts.
Nothing wrong with opinions in politics, but that's all they are.
apache -- you'll also note
March 31, 2007 - 11:23 ET by ApacheIPapache -- you'll also note that even the unnamed sources are usually a load of opinions masquerading as facts.
How very true.
And let's not forget about their feelings. They love to talk about how they feel. Screw rational thought! They have feelings.
Did we leave anything out? Opinions masquerading as facts. Nothing but unnamed sources. And their feelings/emotions.
Lord of the Flies
March 31, 2007 - 11:43 ET by RJThis doesn't change anything you said, but I think it's obvious that many of our left-end posters get much of what they say from the angry-freak-left sites like DU, MoveOn, KosKids, Huffington, etc, etc. They participate in daily "Lord of the Flies" gatherings ("Kill the pig! Kill the pig"...meaning GWB, of course) and then they run over here to spew it all out.
That would explain both their emotionalism and their frequent inability to link to sources.
http://www.buzzflash.com/al
March 31, 2007 - 04:03 ET by BlameTheMediahttp://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/10/ale04068.html
there it is, in a hurry, I can still try to find the specifics of reno
apach, I like how this is w
March 31, 2007 - 04:21 ET by BlameTheMediaapach, I like how this is worded about the oath thing:
How free are we when one must sign a loyalty oath just to be present at
Bush-Cheney campaign events? You’re
the President of the United States of America (leader of the free world) and I as an American citizen am required to swear my
loyalty to your campaign for re-election just to be present to ask you
a question.
Excuse me, sir,
but do you not see the irony in this?
Do you not see that you hav
March 31, 2007 - 04:45 ET by ApacheIPDo you not see that you have fallen for an article that comes directly from the DNC and does not have a direct attribution to a specific reporter?
Don't you find that a little fishy?
we don't have cable so no,
March 31, 2007 - 03:52 ET by BlameTheMediawe don't have cable so no, sorry, haven't seen it
we get 2 stations with rabbit ears, but that's it.
I don't know, to me reporting negative facts and mocking someone are different types of negativity.
"I don't know, to me r
March 31, 2007 - 03:56 ET by ApacheIP"I don't know, to me reporting negative facts and mocking someone are different types of negativity."
I am sure they are. Which is worse in your opinion?
Because certain cartoonists
March 31, 2007 - 08:06 ET by sarcasmoBecause certain cartoonists (coughSouthParkcough) are orders of magnitude more 'fair & balanced' than the entire "mainstream" news media (and I include the news media outlet using that phrase as a slogan in this broad statement!).
JMR
I love when south park make
March 31, 2007 - 16:41 ET by BlameTheMediaI love when south park makes fun of Barbara Striesand.