nick watt gave an embarrassing report tonight on world news tonight on abc.
i say that because a lot of people e-mailed saying they had given up on broadcast television news and wondering if it was really good.
it's corporate news. do not expect miracles.
nick watt contributed a piece tonight that was propaganda. which is a real shame coz he is a hottie.
but he wants to show us what is on iraqi tv. but he does not want to tell us who runs that news. and he does not want to tell us that if you think we have a problem with broadcast news, the iraqis are even more skeptical when americans are involved in their news.
so the questionable news that iraqis are skeptical of is broadcasting taped interviews with captured insurgents. and these interviews are supposed to turn the tide.
and as evidence, nick watts offers us 1 man on the street. who wants to offer that it will stop the insurgency. is the man sunni? is he shiite? those are serious issues.
and why can he only provide 1 witness?
it was total propaganda not unlike hillary clinton's statements this weekend.
c.i. over at the common ills wrote about that last night as has folding star of a winding road.
i'll weigh in myself by saying we damn well do have a right to question to her.
this is not alice walker, this is not gloria steinem. this is hillary clinton who may be a notch above or below goldie hawn.
as c.i. would say: "translation," goldie can talk a good game for a year or 2 and then fall into the backlash for a couple of years, then come back out of it and suddenly has some new comments to make that are semi-worth listening to.
goldie onscreen is a funny lady most of the time.
but let's be real sure we understand that she made a huge step with private benjamin and the press she did for that and then she completely destroyed that with her later comments. with 1st wives club publicity, she was a font of wisdom all the sudden. then after 9-11 she again started making embarrassing remarks.
i'm not sure if hillary's above her or below her. i'd put hillary below her because goldie onscreen can always make me laugh.
but this is not a great leader of the women's movement.
and the idea that we need to treat her as an icon blows my mind.
she's iconic because she was 1st lady?
she holds an office and like any 1 else elected she has to answer questions. she may not like it, but too bad.
and i'm real sorry bill clinton had his health problems before the election. i'm even sorrier he was a chicken shit for so much of his presidency. the third way always seem to steer us to the right. and the captain of dismantling lbj's great society and fdr's new deal was too often bill clinton.
his comments, reported in newsweek, regarding his advice to john kerry about same-sex marriage were ignorant and belittling to a nation. he does not lift us up. we can see him grin and maybe feel good for a moment because of his personal style but he was not our comeback kid, he was the comeback kid.
and too often it has always been all about bill or all about hillary.
welfare reform = war on poor and working poor women.
and they should both be ashamed for flogging that.
so hillary clinton is not above questioning.
she voted for the war.
she has not been strong in voting against nominations.
she has not been a moral leader in any sense.
she has been some 1 who increasingly tries to drape herself in a god-like pose.
if you haven't figured it out yet, i will not vote for her in the primary if she runs for president.
and i think she would lose big in a general election.
she is so hated.
and she's become the 'safe' player in the senate.
so where's the support going to come from?
she really is becoming the female version of joe lieberman.
the right hates her because they think she's liberal.
the left alternates between indifference and apathy to outright loathing.
so i guess the 2 million people who bought her book are some how going to be enough to get her elected president?
and the jokes that will be in the offing. jay leno asking america 'do we really want to put bill back in the white house?' or 'hillary's 1st announced policy? ban all interns.'
it'll be a nightmare and the democratic party will go down in flames.
but here is a bigger issue and it's this: one full term as senator and and 2 years and that qualifies her to be president?
she'll be running against a governor or god knows what.
'vote for me. i made a great 1st lady!'
there's also the backlash that would come about just because we would be going bush-clinton-bush-clinton.
this isn't a monarcy and 2 families shouldn't have a lock on the presidency.
the only family members of a president i'd vote for currently are bobby kennedy who's done outstanding work on environmental issues and amy carter who has always been the most sensible child to grow up in the white house. i'm sure chelsea's lovely but amy carter has common sense. she's the best of both parents and she's serious.
i would also vote al gore if he ran in the primary because i really like what he's been saying for the last 4 years.
but hillary doesn't excite me.
and i don't buy into the 'she should be president because she wants to be.' i think we've all suffered enough from the clintons doing what they wanted to. often at the expense of the less fortunate in our society.
the compassion she sometimes demonstrated as first lady has been no where to be found in the senate where she's appeared hell bent on demonstrating how much 'like a man' she could be.
the softer side has been silenced as the roar of the hawk has overtaken her being.
barbara boxer and russ feingold are 2 senators who seem to have some true compassion and up against them, hillary doesn't seem that different from joe lieberman.
those are my thoughts on hillary. now here's a question in the e-mails from alan. he wants to know why i subscribe to the new york times if i hate it so much.
because i don't pay for it. it's free for me. i checked and my ex-husband still pays for the paper delivered. i'm less and less impressed with what's in it. and often pass it off to a neighbor unread. if i take the time to read some of it, i usally mention it here. which gives you an idea of how often i read it. but i wouldn't pay for it. it's over 40 bucks a month and it's not worth half that even with the crossword.
on a positive note, janeane's back on the majority report tonight in the studio and sounds like she's feeling better. yea janeane!
