It’s so much more fun to watch FOX when it’s someone else being blitzed & sacked! #SuperBowl
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 3, 2014
Monday, February 3, 2014
When even the AP notices Hillary Clinton's politically tone deafness
"HILLARY'S ANALYSIS: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton didn't seem to mind Seattle's Super Bowl rout of Denver. "It's so much more fun to watch FOX when it's someone else being blitzed & sacked!" she Tweeted."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
93 comments:
(1) "The reason you haven't felt it is because it doesn't exist. What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons."
-- Don Draper
(2) That's from an early episode of Mad Men, which has long since pulled its punch when it comes to social commentary.
That's a disappointment, although fully understandable. Soap opera sells advertising, after all. The joke's on us. Very meta. Try to find the pleasures in being played.
(3) I've heard it said that the media covers politics as if it were a sporting event. That's true but politics also gets covered as if it were about celebrities, as if politicians and government officials are actually a part of our social lives. The mainstream media does it and so do the blogs.
(4) Eleanor Roosevelt generally gets credit for having said that small minds discuss people.
(5) Many of us are lonely. We need to feel like we belong. Man is a profoundly social animal, after all. A social animal that invents, manufactures, distributes, sells, and wears nylons. A social animal that communicates by way of the internet.
(6) "Everybody disappoints us, eventually."
-- Pogo
(7) Disappointment abounds.
Hillary is as corrupt as the day is long.
But she doesn't remember.
Just too graphic, Phx?
I could see principled opposition to use of that pic, but I think you're mistaken to call it a propaganda photo. There's a big distinction to be made between a photo staged for propaganda purposes (State of the Union with an injured vet?), and an unstaged pic of real events that happens to succinctly make an effective statement of opposition.
Power hunger/money hunger. Hillary takes the cake.
But no way I respect that propoganda photo of Stevens.
Can't handle the truth? Too ugly for you?
Maybe you should just continue to keep your head firmly ensconced in that dark damp place that it seems to be in now.
Tra la la la laaaaa. Sing a happy tune and ignore the sociopaths that you have elected to office.
Phx ... sigh, way too many people just want to believe what was happening (terrorist attack) was not really known. It was and it has been acknowledged by Leon Panetta and General Dempsey, who deftly do not say they spoke to the President about it in their meeting within minutes of the CRITICOMM message(s) they received. The Secretary of State is on the list of CRITICOMM message de rigueur addressees. Only way she did not know is if she refused to read or listen to the message.
The truth was known, yet within 24 hours the "video did it meme" hit the news as official, and Susan Rice was set up as stooge of the week.
I'm guessing but since I know without a doubt now that Dempsey knew and began immediately setting up the video ruse by calling Terry Jones, a bit palyer of no import but noteriety domestically....without kickback buy State, I have to assume Hillary didn't give a damn for anything but her legacy.
I've had leaders like Clinton and Dempsey...they can get you killed for not good reason. Obama is a prince compared to Hillary, who redefines self-interest and F-you-all attitude.
Correction: ... of the CRITICOMM message(s) they ALL received...
The Twitchy takedown of this is a classic.
She's as done as Christie.
It's sad when people don't respect the truth.
Nobody asked Stevens how he feels
Correct. But Stevens still asked for enhanced security anyway, which was denied by the office of the Secretary of State. So either Hillary herself denied the additional security, or someone that directly reports to her. I think it was a violation of one's responsibility to dismiss Steven's concerns for additional security and who rejected it with "what difference does it make!"
Bat:
"(3) I've heard it said that the media covers politics as if it were a sporting event. That's true but politics also gets covered as if it were about celebrities, as if politicians and government officials are actually a part of our social lives. The mainstream media does it and so do the blogs."
Great insight. Like we should care about their dogs' names or they like jelly beans. It's all about the narrative.
phx said...
Nobody asked Stevens how he feels about using the photos of the torture and disfigurement of his body this way.
To me it's a violation of the sacred
No, the Lefty agenda is not sacred.
phx said...
Nobody asked Stevens how he feels about using the photos of the torture and disfigurement of his body this way.
Hard to ask a dead man anything. What he did say and ask for was ignored or denied, and that lead to his death. I have no problems with letting ordinary civilians see what terroristic warfare looks like.
Politicians would like all of us to think that deaths occur in foreign service and war and the results are pretty flag draped coffins coming home. I have friends in worse places than Libya right now. Reality checks are good for you.
Correction: ...and that lead to his death, AS DEPICTED.
phx, I know you didn't saying anything about it. I wanted to say something about it, because your whining seemed rather insignificant to the matter Lem brought up.
Nobody asked Stevens how he feels about using the photos of the torture and disfigurement of his body this way
Well, that would be a neat trick, if you could do it--->Since he is DEAD. Killed by terrorists and had been BEGGING for some security and it was denied him by the very people who should be looking out for him and the other brave men who also were begging for help and which was denied.
Too bad that it is ugly. Too bad that you are offended. Too bad we have no accountability for this and too bad you want to pretend that it didn't happen because it is just all too icky for your tender sensibilities.
If I were the wife (or other relative) of any of these men, I would buy huge billboards and plaster their dead, tortured, mutilated bodies on it for everyone to see.
I would use a font that would make Crack's look tame by contrast. And I would place the blame directly where it belongs. The President, the Secretary of State and all of those other assholes who were up the 'food chain' and who are responsible for KILLING my husband.
As with most on the left, it's POOR Hillary. Never mind the 4 dead on her watch.
Poor Hillary.
Great insight. Like we should care about their dogs' names or they like jelly beans. It's all about the narrative.
It's melodrama, a form of theater popular in the 19th century we as a people have yet to outgrow, apparently.
Back in the old days the audience members were encouraged to boo and hiss the villians, who were always readily identifiable by their costumes and mannerisms.
Today's political melodrama is more interactive, though, like a videogame, and everyone can play who wants to.
Boo and hiss the villian of your choosing. Dress them in black. Give them a mustache good for twirling; a diabolical laugh for when they've got the upper hand.
We can construct our villian anyway we want to, but we don't have to.
Phx...once an image is in the public domain it is public and no sign off is necessary.
I understand your point, however, I am very tired (going all the way back to fucking Walter Cronkite's bullshit vis a vis Tet, et al) of the re-imaging of terror as benign. I've seen the results face to face. What is portrayed in that image is accurate.
I guess I do not understand your point.
The photo is in the public domain. It wasn't taken by a photographer FOR the family. It was taken as a celebration of his death and distributed by those who tortured and murdered him. As such, the family has no say in the matter.
The photo is the same as that of the little girl in Vietnam who was set afire by napalm. Horrible. Nauseating to look at and to think about. But PUBLIC domain. AND don't you think that was used as propaganda by the anti war leftist? Yes it was. Where is your outrage about that photo being used?
Photos that are taken in a WAR situation are not pleasant. You don't get to ask permission to take the photo and you don't need to ask permission to use the photo. We ARE at war, even if people like you refuse to admit it or see it. As such, the public needs to SEE the war and needs to KNOW what happens in a war. It is ugly. But it is real.
Be honest with yourself. You only are objecting because you disagree with the premise that Hillary and Obama (et al) are carelessly and heartlessly responsible for Steven's death.
Bat, I was recently musing over this, in general. Our desire for narrative, going all the way back to sitting around the caveman campfire telling stories; drawing pictures on cave walls.
"Today's political melodrama is more interactive, though, like a videogame, and everyone can play who wants to."
Again, great insight. In this very thread there is an argument about the use of the graphic image of a burnt man being used as a political tool.
Funny how the Lefties weren't this upset when the media showed the men coming back at Dover on Dubya's watch.
phx:
"Nobody asked Stevens how he feels about using the photos of the torture and disfigurement of his body this way.
To me it's a violation of the sacred - and you can't justify it by pointing to someone else's violations or wrongdoings. Those are separate issues and one doesn't justify another.
Tone deaf for sure."
You are correct, phx, but we're not in Kansas anymore.
Indeed sit down is an ad hominem argument. And if you can't handle the truth, whining about it won't make it go away.
The key question about the use of the image is who will it move? How will the swing vote interpret it, if they ever even see it.
Phx said...
... violates something sacred to me. It doesn't offend me personally, I could care less really...
Oxymoron phrasing? How can it be "sacred to me" and yet you don't care?
It means nothing to me either, yet I DO care that the reality of terrorism is published...realistically. Who does it is not important to me unless they sponsor a lie with the publication. What is the lie sponsored by the photo as used here?
It is crass, yes, but it is what happe4ned. We need to know these things. It is too late to decry who uses what...it happened, period.
There is no lie. Recall, please, the 4 Blackwater operators who were burned, hung, and displayed to support Jihad in Iraq per se...the reality of terrorist sponsored activity is horrific, the more it is displayed, by whomever, the better. That Charlene Lamb is the initial culprit, vis a vis Benghazi, is immaterial, she reported to Hillary...and both copped a defense of "we had agreed on this"...when the only agreement was inside State Department bureaucracy, not between the field operators and their superiors (e.g....their betters).
As I said earlier, I have friends serving in places worse than Libya, far worse when potential is considered, and I fear for their lives...which includes their families, often a DOD or State cover for actors they send out.
Phx said...
I really just don't care. That's my survival mechanism.
See...we agree after all. But I bet you don't see it that way.
Phillip Hoffamn died as a junkie should die...needle in arm, dead, dead, dead.
Fuck that "art is above it all" shit portrayed on TOP.
We are "protected" from (ie., "not informed about") the savagery of inconvenient reality by our betters in the political and propaganda classes. (They're not our betters; I was being facetious there.) That's why we were not shown photos of the people jumping from the WTC on 9/11, for example. That's why this is the first time I'm seeing this photo. If it's real which I don't even know. I do know that friends of mine thought that the photo of the bloody drag marks on the wall in Benghazi were "tea bagger propaganda" (Don't ask me why tea baggers" are implicated - I suspect b/c it's fun to say "tea bagger") and also believed that the kindly Muslim protesters were only trying to carry Chris Stevens to the hospital after he inadvertently died. Seriously.
I must be missing something... I thought the tweet was funny.
Not, perhaps, funny in a way that puts Hillary in a good light, after all she's admitting to being blitzed and sacked... or something... but sort of clever and... funny.
The photo didn't render when I first looked and I just saw the tweet.
Not necessarily putting them together... I don't know about that other than, yes, Hillary and Obama are culpable and, yes, it's important that the US population know the truth.
(It's awful for his family to know what really happened, but as Tillman's death taught us, some comforting lies for the sake of family are the worst evil in the whole world.)
That's why I asked if it was the use of the photo specifically that upset you, Phx, because I can understand a position that says "I am opposed to the use of photos of human suffering for political gain".
I might even be sympathetic to the notion, but in this case I think the graphic image serves as a shocking reminder that 1) wars (even undeclared executive action wars like Libya) are terrible messy things, 2) our enemies do not play by the same rules (including decency) that we do, and 3) prominent members of this administration tried to obfuscate, deflect, and minimize the event in order to avoid taking responsibility.
I accidentally caught the end of "Clear and Present Danger" the other day on tv, where Harrison Ford witnesses the horrors of a secret op gone bad and involvement disowned by the administration. This photo is our Jack Ryan, pleading for the truth to come out, political cost be damned.
Do you acknowledge the propaganda value in NOT showing images of this sort?
The propaganda value of whitewashing events... certainly that exists.
Or if not *propaganda* value, then the purely political value in refusing to cover the extent of the horror?
phx, no one said "applaud" until YOU said "applaud.
If you can't make your argument honestly then maybe you don't have an argument.
Lem - I think the problem with using images like that to advance a political argument is amply demonstrated here. People who aren't already on your side will recoil from it, and from your argument, and then the discussion turns into a discussion of you and your tactics, rather than the thing you originally wanted brought to the table.
When the shocking part of the propaganda, the part that makes you stop and think that hey maybe they've got a point, is a photo of what really happened . . . . IF this story hadn't been so thoroughly whitewashed, and propagandized, this photo (again, if it's real which I still don't know) could not be used for propaganda. Hillary Clinton's (and Barack Obama's) tone-deafness arises from the fact that they are so slavishly protected that they don't have to think about the impact of their words.
Do we know for sure that's a photo of Ambassador Stevens?
It's used, for instance, in a VeteransToday.com article dated May 21, 2009 on the CIA's use of torture.
Lydia, it would seem that it can't be Stevens, if that's the case.
Lydia, it would seem that it can't be Stevens, if that's the case
Whew!!! What a relief for PHX. She can now calm her sensibilities about the misuse Steven's sacred photo and stop worrying about how his family feels. Its just some OTHER poor schub being tortured and photographed by some OTHER insane Muslim fanatics for some OTHER propaganda. It may not even involve Hillary. Wow. What a relief. Hillary and Obama are in the clear....on this one.....maybe.
Anyway....what difference at this point does it make....right?
To be very clear that was /sarcasm
Exactly.
I think it is fair to complain about the use of this photo of a murdered ambassador as propaganda attacking Hillary if you feel the same way about photos of traffic jams used to attack Chris Christie.
I mean propaganda is propaganda.
Here's the thing phx. When you are wrong on the facts you argue the process.
This is the kind of in your face tactics that get the attention of the low information voter. Doctrine liberals such as yourself will not be convinced. And of course I would not let the candidate's machine do it. I would use outside groups. You know. Follow Obama's playbook.
I would venture to bet that it will be Hillary's primary opponents who will use this tactic.
You know who invented the "Willie Horton" ploy? Al Gore in the primary. Watch and see. I can totally see Andrew Cuomo using that photo. No problemo for "Mr. Vote for Cuomo Not the Homo."
I think Cuomo is really positioning himself for a run. His abortion law can let him plausibly out-vagina Hillary and his gun control debacle will play with all the liberal pussies throughout the primary process. His token move to the moderate is his talk of maybe, possibly lowering taxes. He is setting himself up as the only plausible alternative to Hillary.
Propaganda has to be done the smart way. If this photo is not of Stevens, and it seems it's not, pushing it this way will only work to undercut the credibility of all criticism of Hillary over Benghazi.
And that would be a pity, because there's plenty to hang her with already -- simply having Stevens in the area on Sept. 11th, not trying her damndest to rescue him, pushing the video as the cause of the attack, etc. And, of course, that awful "what difference does it make" sound-bite.
Lydia ... why do you presume that use of the photo from other propaganda purposes is proof of anything? The author also mentions the Phoenix Program without attribution to Robert Komer and LBJ...very similar to John Brennan and BHO....clandestine operations, one of which ended Ambassador Stevens life. In short, for as much as I read of that article, it is not the whole truth either. I will try to find the other 3 parts and say more later.
I'd note here that I mentioned Komer and Phoenix long ago right here. I never said it was righteous. Fact is it was very secret and about 75% of it was never revealed to the public....just as the predations of the Viet Minh, Viet Cong, and PAVN on their own people were never fully detailed in order to achieve peace in our time, etc.
We seem to specialize in deceiving ourselves to see barbaric acts as less than that.
Cuomo can legitimately run as the first female prez candidate.
Aridog...I just have misunderstood then. I thought the photo as used in that posted graphic, and as discussed by other commenters here, is actually supposed to be a photo of Stevens, not some other person.
The article I linked to that has that photo was written in 2009.
Trooper:
"I think Cuomo is really positioning himself for a run. His abortion law can let him plausibly out-vagina Hillary and his gun control debacle will play with all the liberal pussies throughout the primary process. His token move to the moderate is his talk of maybe, possibly lowering taxes. He is setting himself up as the only plausible alternative to Hillary."
And I can just see him tearing her to pieces, from what little I just learned about him.
Trooper York...yep, Cuomo wants to run for POTUS. If Hillary is in his way he'll do unto her as she would to him, but he'll do it first.
Oh if they want to see a War on Woman just wait till one is in the way of something that Andy Cuomo wants.
It will not be pretty.
Oh and one other thing. The lapdog media will blame it all on the Republicans.
Phx you concern trolling is really cute but it is not going to work.
This is going to be an epically dirty campaign. The Republicans need to double down on all of Obama's dirty tricks.
Clarification:
Lydia is correct, the photo in the Hillary piece is not of Stevens according to a half dozen sites I have looked at this PM.
While I have no problem showing the barbarity of our enemies, I think using a stock photo to cite a specific negligence and indifference to loss of life is weak. Just use the validated photos of Ambassador Stevens, dead,...no need to corrupt the message with unrelated images.
Phx ... you aren't implying that Hillary as Secretary of State and the rest of this administration have not lied repeatedly and egregiously are you?
The message is not strengthened by use of a weak tool. Just put up two photos, one of Hillary's melt down before Congress and a dead Stevens being carried away in a photo that is validated.
"What difference does it make?" Right?
I'd say the same thing about the use of the 2009 photo...the message is still accurate.
This filthy propaganda is beneath contempt sez the ardent supporter of an administration that lies about what day of the week it is.
Institutional state dishonesty has many unintended consequences.
April Apple said...
Hillary is as corrupt as the day is long.
But she doesn't remember.
What difference, at this point, does it make?
Post a Comment