Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Campaigns

131 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

  • Russell Brown,

    wot, Obama hasn't gone in for cheesy photo ops? Obama hasn't slightly redefined his position on particular issues depending on his audience?

    Obama hasn't double-teamed Clinton with McCain, and he seemed to be going out of his way to avoid slamming Clinton when he initially responded to the "bitter" thing. Even when he did criticise her, it was in good humour. Obama also hasn't trashed former presidential candidates out of sheer political expedience.

    Yes, creating an image is part of the job, but, as Marshall pointed out, Clinton's campaign is becoming a parody.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Curtis,

    So Clinton 'clearly obviously' lied ?
    Really , she says she had a lapse. meanwhile Obama lied about not hearing the inflammatory comments of Wright when asked on ABC which he later corrected without noting his earlier comments when he made his Union speech . Did he too not have a lapse?

    AS for the Tusla incident in Bosnia. The reality was the Clintons were moved to the cockpit of the C17 jet ( which is amoured) and there had been reports of sniper fire in the hills surrounding the airport. This was of course in 1996 . or 12 years ago . 12 years ago for someone who has an incredibly busy public life

    But this is less excusable Russell

    This is what she did say ( which you truncated)

    We can answer that some other time,” Clinton said at a press conference held in a working class neighborhood here. “This is about what people feel is being said about them. I went to church on Easter. I mean, so?”

    Maybe she doesnt remember when last she fired a gun and doesnt .
    what to say so, BUT she does remember when she went to church
    .
    And your last comments about Hillary are begiining to sound a lot like the Kiwiblog mafia about Helen

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 314 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    I've been around long enough to see the change from the Horton family to Sir Tony O'Reilly has wrought on the NZ herald in particular. The Fairfax media backed Howard in Australia and they back the Nats here.

    Um.. The Herald belongs to APN, which is over 25% owned by Independent News and Media, which is 26% owned by O'Reilly. No Fairfax involvement there.

    Fairfax own the Dom Post.

    Other O'Reilly influenced papers aren't particularly right-wing, e.g. the (London) Independent. I haven't been around that long, but I get the impression that the Herald has always been right-wing, but went through a period of trying to disguise it.

    Also, I think the rightist nature of NZ media (TV as well as papers) is more a matter of self-perpetuation, with a right-wing incumbent management hiring mostly rightists. Maybe this will change, but I doubt it.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    Cullen should have told Parliament the Bill conflicts with the bill of rights - hence presumably that the act should be thrown out.

    No, Parliament passes acts that conflict with the Bill of Rights all the time - see the advice on the Misuse of Drugs (BZP) Act

    Basically, the BoR is a pointless adornment. We should have a proper BOR that allows legislation to be voided, but don't.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    He seems to have a case - that the crown law advice was wrong and Cullen should have told Parliament the Bill conflicts with the bill of rights - hence presumably that the act should be thrown out.

    You presume incorrectly. It's just about the embarassment factor. This isn't America, and our courts don't get to throw laws out.

    (Personally, I favour a justicible BORA. But that isn't the law yet)

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    So Clinton 'clearly obviously' lied ?
    Really , she says she had a lapse.

    Four separate times, in considerable detail, to bolster her claim that she and McCain had the goods and Obama didn't.

    If she didn't remember it, she shouldn't have described in such detail a scene that demonstrably didn't happen.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Shep Cheyenne,

    Tusla was a pretty vivid recollection by Hilary which was totally made up. She didn't get confused with another time this happened. She made it up.

    Holding her responsible for her words is right. Holding Obama responsible for his Pastors words isn't right - not that I have an issue with what he said. It sounded like a verse from "Born in the USA" to me.

    On Mike Williams, I think he is in an impossible position & who knows, was he rolling his eyes at the time? Either way it's a bit harsh to chastise someone for facilatating a bit of brain storming.

    Since Oct 2007 • 927 posts Report Reply

  • Shep Cheyenne,

    must type faster

    Since Oct 2007 • 927 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    And your last comments about Hillary are begiining to sound a lot like the Kiwiblog mafia about Helen

    Hardly. I'm just finding her campaign more than a little Rovian.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • andrew llewellyn,

    Knew I'd seen this somewhere... direct link to Hilary's memory

    Since Nov 2006 • 2075 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Rowe,

    And your last comments about Hillary are begiining to sound a lot like the Kiwiblog mafia

    I object to this. The mafia are organised criminals, murderers and extortionists. You'd never call the Kiwi Blog Right "organised".

    Lake Roxburgh, Central Ot… • Since Nov 2006 • 574 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle,

    (Bill Maher is the only one I'm surprised by though)

    Russell, Bill Maher has sexism oozing pathetically out of every pore, and has been that way for years, since the old Politically Incorrect days. It's a pity, because some of his other material is really cogent and funny, but listening to him talk about women has caused me hours of raging irritation.

    This is a delightful diatribe from him on the 'feminisation of America' (I don't know how to embed, because I am lame):

    I particularly like his 'some women are really smart!' disclaimer at the beginning. How *magnanimous* of you, Bill! Thanks so much! And all the stuff about how trapped men are in their marriages... very fresh. He might as well be saying 'take my wife, please!' Where are we, the Catskills?

    Oh, and his recent 'stance' on women breastfeeding in restaurants? 'Breast-feeding a baby is an intimate act, and I don’t want to watch strangers performing intimate acts.... there’s no principle at work here other than being too lazy to either plan ahead or cover up. It’s not fighting for a right. It’s fighting for the spotlight.... there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called “Hooters."''

    Now, women, did you get that? Boobs are for *men to look at*, and nothing else! Feh.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Danielle: ick. I usually only hear Maher talk about drugs and religion and stuff.

    And YouTube vids embed automatically -- so long as you have a "www" in the URL (just add it if you need to), you can just paste it in.

    And I was surprised to find that there is actually some video of Obama's controversial SF meeting. It doesn't include the "bitter" sentence, but it indicates the tone and context. He was apparently asked about likely hostility by someone who was about to go and campaign for him in PA.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Peter Darlington,

    Sorry to blatantly threadjack but I'm looking for contacts at Freeview and wondered if Russell or anyone here knows anyone reasonably high up in the organisation that I can get in touch with?

    Nelson and Tasman are missing out on the HD UHF rollout and there's talk of our local government politicians letting Freeview know what they think of this decision.

    So, political protests about missing out on high definition digital services, how 21st century is that!?

    Nelson • Since Nov 2006 • 949 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    This just in: Clinton piles in on "bittergate" in her new PA TV ad.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart,

    Oh, and his recent 'stance' on women breastfeeding in restaurants? 'Breast-feeding a baby is an intimate act, and I don’t want to watch strangers performing intimate acts.... there’s no principle at work here other than being too lazy to either plan ahead or cover up. It’s not fighting for a right. It’s fighting for the spotlight.... there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called “Hooters."''

    That was exactly when I gave up on Bill Maher, I was inarticulately furious. The argument against this is too stupid and obvious to bother repeating.

    Poor guy, unable to not stare at breasts in public, even if there's a baby's head in the way.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4651 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    It's one of those uneasinesses that guys just have to get over. I admit to 'not knowing where to look', which shouldn't be confused with 'unable to not stare'. It's hard to know if it's rude to look away - if it's so normal, surely you should be able to just keep chatting away to the woman normally, but I find I get just as many uncomfortable stares doing just that. Which makes me think it's not just men who are conflicted about whether it's a private act. It's somewhere between, and I can't think of an analogy. What else do we do, that you can do in public, but people are expected to look away? Imagination fails me right now. Closest thing I can think of is 'getting changed in a men's locker room'. It's basically not done to stare at another man doing it, but that's what you're all doing...getting changed in front of each other. But it's not such a good analogy cause it's already restricted only to males.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Shep Cheyenne,

    Mahers audience has got that confused puritan/fetish thing going on = Republicans.

    I can't listen to The Rock either, beyond the fact they talk total sh*t. Listening to the morning weather report being brought to you by a strip bar while getting a kid off to school is something I can't do.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but there is no issue with breast feeding in NZ? And for that matter no legal issue about either guys or dolls taking their tops off in public?

    Since Oct 2007 • 927 posts Report Reply

  • Shep Cheyenne,

    "Which makes me think it's not just men who are conflicted about whether it's a private act."

    It's not men, it's you Ben ; )

    Seriously though - It's rude to ask a question of someone eating and thereby forcing them to gulp their food, or to speak with their mouth open. So too if someone is otherwise engaged they may wish to concerntrate on more important things. Just wing it.

    Since Oct 2007 • 927 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart,

    Correct me if I'm wrong but there is no issue with breast feeding in NZ?

    If I was out in public and my baby needed feeding, I'd feed. Often this meant sitting down in mall food courts - vastly preferable to skulking off to hide in those disgusting "parents' rooms". I never received a negative comment, and I got a few positive ones.

    But. There was a woman in my ante-natal group who didn't breast-feed at all because her friends would make snide comments about women who fed in public. She'd been sensitised to the point where she was just too embarrassed to do it at all.

    if it's so normal, surely you should be able to just keep chatting away to the woman normally, but I find I get just as many uncomfortable stares doing just that

    I used to breast-feed in my role-playing group. People were perfectly happy to roll my d10s for me, and the guys coped admirably. I really struggle to believe you've had women be uncomfortable by being treated normally while feeding. If they detach from the group to do it, respect their privacy, if they don't, respect their 'still being a personness'.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4651 posts Report Reply

  • Lyndon Hood,

    No, Parliament passes acts that conflict with the Bill of Rights all the time - see the advice on the Misuse of Drugs (BZP) Act

    The point is that he is required by law to tell parliament it conflicts if it does (I suppose - again - in legal fact rather than opinion). See the advice on the BZP act.

    I/S - with regard to the consequences I'll happily take your word.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1115 posts Report Reply

  • WH,

    After Bill Clinton signed the Brady Bill and the ban on a limited number of assault weapons, the NRA aggressively targeted Democrats who had supported the legislation in the 1994 midterms. That was the year the Democrats lost Congress to the Republicans.

    Despite what is written above, Bill Clinton generally ran on a moderate DLC platform rather than a traditionally liberal one. A superb communicator, he was the first Democratic President to be re-elected since FDR, which was, like, back in the day.

    Democratic primary voters - especially caucus-goers - tend to sit to the political left of the country at large. This is why Hillary has encouraged people to look to the results of the swing states, where she tends to hold her own with Obama - rather than the total delegate count, where she is losing. Some parts of the left despised the DLC and Hillary long before the race for the nomination started to heat up, so its no surprise that they dont like her now. (Not that she doesnt have genuine flaws as a candidate.)

    As I see it, the real problem is that Democrats are closely split between two strong candidates, and have no good way of deciding the issue before the nominating convention. I don't really mind who wins the nomination - I just want the Democrat to beat the Republican.

    Obama's comments were bad politics IMO. He is of course right to point out that cultural issues, including race, religion and guns (cf. god, guns and gays), have been ruthlessly exploited by the Republicans for years. However, in this context it may have been unwise to suggest that people's strongly held opinions are in fact the result of forces Obama understands but that they do not.

    Since Nov 2006 • 797 posts Report Reply

  • Neil Morrison,

    Obama also hasn't trashed former presidential candidates out of sheer political expedience.

    He’s used Edwards as the butt of some of his rhetoric - after Edwards pulled out. Why do think Edwards hasn't endorsed him?

    He's also trashed the achievements of the Bill Clinton presidency - not just Bill's statements during this campaign which are fair game - but trashed one of the more successful Democrat administrations. He did it again right at the beginning of the part of the speech with the "bitter" bit.

    And some of what Obama has put in his CV doesn't quite relate to reality either and I could go on matching your criticisms of Clinton with exactly the same sort of behaviour from Obama. The difference is I don’t go about calling Obama "evil". I just prefer some of Clinton’s policies.

    Since Nov 2006 • 932 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Curtis,

    Obama and Clinton remind me a bit about Kennedy and Johnson.
    While those two didn't compete for the nomination ( up to the same stage as Clinton & Obama) they did end up as running mates.

    One was the charismatic young Senator - who only had a few years of top political experience and the other was the wily tough political pro with the scars to prove it- who was a Senatorial titan.

    As history turned out Johnson had an legislative record that was only exceeded by FDR. Who remembers what Kennedy achieved other than his visit to Dallas.

    And whats the bet there will be a wronged woman to come forward a month before the election - why would die hard republicans register as democrats for a day in order to vote for him in the primaries unless they knew the amateur would be more easily knocked out in the title fight

    But no need to think at all about any of this since Hillary is 'evil'.
    And how dare she do the medias job and tell the voters what Obamas faults are.
    They sure dont hold back on any of the Clintons

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 314 posts Report Reply

  • Neil Morrison,

    As I see it, the real problem is that Democrats are closely split between two strong candidates...

    And split along the lines of identity politics and not just Black vs female. It could be a sort of Perfect Storm. Neither are to blame, just this particular combination could bring a lot of trouble.

    Since Nov 2006 • 932 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.