Saturday, February 16, 2008

Explaining Our View of Clinton-Obama

By Robert Parry
February 16, 2008

Over the past few months, as the Democratic presidential race has heated up, we have received a number of complaints about critical stories we have written about Barack Obama and, especially, Hillary Clinton.

A common theme in the complaints is that we should lighten up on the Democratic frontrunners and concentrate more on John McCain and the Republicans. Some readers have accused us of sounding like the MSM in our reporting on Sen. Clinton in particular.

Read on.


Tommy said...

Thank you for the historical perspective, and stick to your guns. I respect your bias towards objectivity ; )
As Chris Matthews pointed out, the Clintons' 'kneecapping' style of intimidation won't work - the natural reaction when someone tries to shut you up with threats, is the middle finger raised in response. Sadly, that's more and more what the Clintons are deserving as their fortunes wane, with their Macbeth-like commitment to victory-at-all-costs.

Anonymous said...

I, too, very much respect your devotion to your standards and to the truth. Those who would desert you for telling the truth only make those of us who respect you for the same more devoted to you.

Anonymous said...

please talk about the nuclear power company obama propped up with the abuse of his legislator position--exelon--resembles enron--and talk about his friend federal prison whom obama also used to build inner city dwellings--of course, rezko kept the poor african americans without heat and cold air and managed to wire 3.8 million overseas...yet obama let him bankroll his US senate campaign...and about the "reformed" homosexual gospel singer he toured south carolina with to win the state. you seem to skip over these very vital hypocritical behaviors....obama takes lessons straight from the bush play book.
so clinton had an affair and let friends sleep in lincoln's bed and he lost 95 thousand in whitewater...exhonorated too by star...and why do you focus on the clinton's? how many americans suffer because of them? obama is exactly like bush.

Anonymous said...

So Hillary must be defeated because Bill didn't nail Bush to the wall, is that it? You know, Bob, I liked having multiple job offers and good ones at that, the FMLA really came in handy when I needed it, great race relations, more cops, less crime, solid international cooperation, AmeriCorps, a president and a first lady admired throughout the known galaxy, and back to back WINS. So, Bob, ON BALANCE, the 90's were the best years I can remember. Sorry he let you down on the Bush thing.

Anonymous said...

Sometimes the truth hurts. You cannot have it both ways; either you believe in the truth, even when it is not convenient, or you do not. (It is the same with freedom of speech. You only truly believe in the concept of freedom of speech if you will stand up for a person's right to express his/her views when those views are repugnant to you.) Please, Mr. Parry, continue to provide us with the information we need to make informed decisions. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your daily contribution to informing the public. Your use of research and analysis both reasoned and seasoned keeps me reading Consortiumnews.
We need to scrutinize all candidates carefully. Whichever side I come down on when voting, I want as much accurate information as I can get before election day.

Robert May said...

I add my support to have you continue your reporting as-is. Unfortunately, we Progressives are like most other groups. We're happy when the medium agrees with our opinions and we're unhappy when the medium disagrees. I want to believe that all Progressives want only the truth. I usually don't read the responses for lack of time so I missed all the fusses. If you don't like the bias you perceive, then ask to hear/read more of the alternative perspectives without the rancor. I do that with the NPR Ombudsman when I perceive them reading another pro-Administration AP bulletin.

Anonymous said...

Hillary Clinton is but a Republican running as a Democrat. To think that a Clinton Presidency would be fundamentally different to G.W. Bush is wishful thinking indeed.

Anonymous said...

As a constituent of Senator Clinton, I can say unequivocally that she was hostile to suggestions that war with Iraq was a dangerous idea before we invaded. Further, she has never backed down, which is why I do not support her. I worry that she will provoke confrontation in order to prove she has the will to war or, perhaps like her husband, launch attacks without waiting for Congress to approve. Just today, Chelsea Clinton chided a student questioner about her mother's war vote by sarcastically commenting that perhaps the questioner was clairvoyant, but her mother was not.

Thanks to Consortium News for sorting through the news— the good, the bad and the ugly. It's painful to remember that high standards like yours were once the norm from many sources.

Bob Newhard said...


In the morass of conflicting motives, communications and allegiances that times like these elicit, I appreciate very much your informed comment. Please keep on doing what you do so well and so responsibly.

Robert Newhard

Anonymous said...

Country first, party second. We need to force both of these political parties, Rs and Ds, to make them represent "We The People" instead of corporate interests.

When I need to prove to a Republican friend that s/he is inadequately informed by what I call the corporate media (there's nothing truly mainstream about it), I can use these articles. Only if they see honest assessments of Democrats are they likely to believe honest assessments about Republicans.

To my fellow readers, "We The People" are asking for big trouble when we put our politicians on pedestals. They are fallible human beings like us. When we learn they too are imperfect beings, we get angry and tear them down. We punish our politicians if they tell us a truth about ourselves we don't want to hear. Can anyone even be elected in the U.S. without having to lie about something? Perhaps if we didn't demand perfection... It's like a child first learning her dad doesn't have all the answers.

These days truth-tellers are a national treasure so please don't stone them! And don't demand perfection from them either!

"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." George Orwell.

Where will we be if their voices are silenced?

wbnyc said...

This is exactly the "speak truth to power" I want from Consortium News.

Follow wherever the truth leads.

Provide context and history.

Nothing "off the radar"

wb ...

big em said...

Consortium News -- Keep up the good work. Don't let them 'work-the-ref' on you in the Clinton-Obama race. Anyone who reads you regularly knows that you aren't party-biased.

Elizabeth said...

When we screech because you tell us our 'candidate' (mine is Obama) is not perfect, ignore us. Americans always shoot the messenger, even when we greatly respect you.

Thanks for standing up always and particularly for doing it now. Maybe this time the rest of the country will actually hear you.

You rock!

Anonymous said...

I cannot understand why anyone would expect anything less than the truth no matter who is involved. That is one Big Thing wrong with this country-The idea that the news is some recipe that can be, should be, sweetened or spiced to taste. Fuck that! Real journalism, real questioning, real results...That's why I'm here. Thanks, Bobby Crosby Freeland, Wa.

EvilPoet said...

They say if you're not pissing them off you're not doing your job. Keep up the good work! ;-)

LadyofMtAiry said...

Voters need to understand that getting your candidate ready for "prime-time" is part of the vetting process and they need to listen to these comments that the other side will bring up if you don't.

We don't need any "October surprises" to deal with.

Anonymous said...

I am one of the readers who found your column earlier in the week in which you suggested that we owed it to our children to support Obama so we wouldn't dash their dreams to be astoundingly insulting to women.

Other than that (and a few other minor nits), I've respected most of your reporting/opinion over the years. However, with that said, I do believe that you -- and most of the media -- have given Barack Obama a pass on just about everything, zero scrutiny. As David Ignatius finally realized (in WaPo today), perhaps it's time the media took a closer look at this guy Obama, before we have an epidemic of buyer's remorse.

There's more ink devoted to Obama's "charisma" than to his qualifications, history, record, or ideas. If I hear or read about Obama's imagined (I don't see his charms) charisma one more time, I think I'll scream! That witless assumption that a politician must have charisma to be a proper leader ignores the fact that a politician can have a "presence" and be much more effective and prepared for the times than the one with the much-touted charisma. Senator Clinton has a remarkable presence, IMO.

Obama impresses me as a man filled with self-interest. When Michelle Obama said of her husband (in The New York Times, Feb 14, 2008), that if he doesn't get the nomination there won't be another run for the presidency, it's now or never, I thought "where is the commitment?"

A charismatic pol wants to be. The politician worth voting for wants to do.

Anonymous said...

Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

I see your devotion to the rich white kid from Hawaii remains intact. As a leftist I don't support any demoncratic candidate but could have voted for Kucinich or Edwards. I've noticed of late that you've beginning to show the signs of someone who has been bought and paid for or someone in the beginning stages of Alzheimer's. That love letter from Lisa Pease was one toke over the line. I'm just surprised that she didn't add that she went back to her hotel room and masturbated. As a reader and supporter for over 20 years it's sad to see what's become of you. Be careful what you wish for Robert, you might just get it and Barack may have you begging for the return of Smirky a few years down the line. I'll join the majority of Americans who'll sit out this selection as we over on the left have no candidate and refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Anonymous said...

I find Consortuim News to be the very best, well researched, fair view of current events on the web today. I don't miss a day without checking in. As for today's election events?

Another article you wrote speaks of the 1968 Letdown of the younger generation (I am a boomer) and it has depressed and angered my generation all our lives.

I'd rather be damned to hell than do the same thing to our children. I voted for Obama and I will do it again. He is THEIR candidate of hope although I wanted the more populist Edwards. That decision was made for me once again, leaving me hanging. I simply can't support Hillary because I want the criminals in office to be held to the fire just like WE THE PEOPLE are when we break the law.

I am sickened by the corruption of our government and media and their complicity in covering up crimes. It really makes me wonder if they are covering up a background from Arkansas that shows the ties with the mafia and drug running there.

Note to the writers: We need more research done on the infiltration of organized crime in our government. I have taken a hard look at this and am convinced that Mario Puzzo's warning has come full circle:

They DID go "legit".

Anonymous said...

Note to the writers: We need more research done on the infiltration of organized crime in our government.

Anonymous, then we should worry about Obama's ties to criminals. Tony Rezko, Rashid Khalidi, William Ayers come to mind.

Ayers may be a "legit" college professor now, but he and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, (also a college prof) were on the lam for years after they went into hiding following the bombing of the building in NYC.

Oh, that's right...they were idealistic young people of the 60s who thought violence was okay because their cause was so lofty.

Karl Rove is going to have a field day trashing Obama. I don't want to see that happen. But it's a sure thing. Rove must be laughing his fat ass off about how easy it's gonna be.

Anonymous said...

Dear Sirs, Watching your Political Process from the over the Canadian border I rely on your Website for truth & reliable information. If some of your readers would prefer to read puff pieces they can always go to the politicians own websites & find all fairy tale feel good information they need to reassure themselves that the world's flat & all's well in it! Please keep up your great work & marvellous articles.

Anonymous said...

From BartCop

How I Read Minds
by Robert Parry

Over the past few months, as the Democratic presidential race has heated up,
we have received a number of complaints about critical stories we have written
about Barack Obama and, especially, Hillary Clinton.

Sen. Clinton, who insists that she will be “ready on Day One,” wasn’t ready on
that day in October 2002 when President Bush demanded a blank check to
invade Iraq. She did what many other aspiring Democratic presidential
hopefuls did; she tested the political winds and voted yes.
(end excerpt)

It's amazing how Bob can read the minds of other people.

He's giving us the Bob Parry Guarantee that Hillary took this decision lightly.
He's giving us the Bob Parry Guarantee that Hillary "tested the political winds"
before she cast her I-don't-care-about-the-troops vote.

Let's assume that Hillary didn't personally share this secret with Bob.

Bob says this IS what she was thinking at the time - for sure.
So, either Bob Parry made that shit up, OR he's a mind reader - for sure.

He didn't say "maybe."
He didn't say "It seems that..."
He didn't say "apparently..."
He didn't say "insiders allege that..."

No, Bob Parry goes inside Hillary's mind to get the real scoop.

Damn, I wish I could read minds like Bob Parry.