No comparison

July 18, 2007

Following up on yesterday’s item, in which we talked about Bill O’Reilly labeling DailyKos “one of the worst examples of hatred America has to offer,” and vowing to boycott JetBlue for its sponsorship of YearlyKos, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign issued an interesting statement this morning in a Kos diary.

From Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson to Bill O’Reilly:

“Blogs are the 21st Century version of the public square. Sen. Clinton does not agree with everything said on Daily Kos, but isolating a few comments as a way to smear a blog frequented by hundreds of thousands of people a day is wrong. Certainly you would understand this when you look at some of the extreme views guests on your show have advocated over the years. Here are just a few examples:

“You’ve hosted Michael Savage, who has called MLK Jr. Day a ‘racket’ designed to steal ‘white males’ birthright.’

“You’ve hosted David Horowitz, who has called Democrats ‘apologists for terrorists.’

“You’ve hosted, Ann Coulter who said of the 9/11 widows: ‘I have never seen people enjoying their husbands’ death so much.’

“It wouldn’t be reasonable to attribute these views to you and it’s not reasonable for you to attribute every comment on Daily Kos to everyone who attends the YearlyKos convention. Sen. Clinton is looking forward to attending YearlyKos.”

Good for Clinton. O’Reilly is blasting JetBlue for supporting YearlyKos? Fine, Clinton says, I’ll proudly state my support for the conference, and point out the reasons O’Reilly’s guests are at least as hot-headed as intemperate Kos commenters.

I’d just add one minor point: if we’re trying to determine who’s more irresponsible when it comes to vitriol in the discourse, O’Reilly vs. random DailyKos diarists, it’s not even close.

The Fox News blowhard is way worse. Ezra explains:

DailyKos really is like a town square: People walk into the middle of it and shout. Not so with O’Reilly’s show. There, a group of producers and editors, in consultation with O’Reilly, consciously invite guests who will be able to use the program’s prominence as a megaphone for their message.

O’Reilly could, of course, launch into an attack on these people, but when he brings them on as simply erudite commentators and observers, as he often does with the group mentioned here, he is endorsing their worth as analysts in the public sphere. In other words, the existence of obscene and offensive commentators on DailyKos is evidence of the site’s passivity and openness. With O’Reilly, its evidence of what O’Reilly and his team wanted to proactively showcase on their program that evening. The two really are different.

Exactly. In O’Reilly’s eyes, Markos himself is some kind of David Duke-like hatemonger because a handful of people Markos doesn’t know said intemperate things on diaries Markos probably never saw. In contrast, O’Reilly — when he’s not encouraging terrorists to kill Americans or joking about committing acts of terror himself — goes out of his way to promote some of the most vile right-wing “celebrities” in American politics, no matter how radical their rhetoric.

I just made the same point over at Taylor Marsh’s blog. I’m surprised that Clinton didn’t point out that O’Reilly had *invited* those people….

  • “DailyKos really is like a town square: People walk into the middle of it and shout. Not so with O’Reilly’s show. There, a group of producers and editors, in consultation with O’Reilly, consciously invite guests who will be able to use the program’s prominence as a megaphone for their message.”

    In shorter terms: an intemperate poster at DailyKos is like an obnoxious drunk party-crashing a wedding. Bill’s guests are the equivalent of marrying the obnoxious drunk.

  • It’s interesting that Clinton’s people went after O’Reilly’s guests’ statements, but not his own. I would think his saying “You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead” would be their first example.

  • I hope the last two presidential elections have shown Dems that it is better to butt the criticism head-on, no matter how ridiculous the criticism is, rather than to assume that people know better. Sadly, most people do not know better and it is up to the candidates to set the record straight often. Not to apologize (as Edwards did for the haircut) but to shoot it down. Bill Clinton (perhaps channeling Carville) always says you hit the bully in the mouth, and do it in the same news cycle.

    Kudos, Senator Clinton.

  • It’s about time a Democrat stood up against this kind of crap. And, even better, they didn’t have to resort to the kind of underhanded, mean-spirited, personal tactics the Rethugs like to use.

  • For all the talk of Hillary’s “unfavorables,” at the end of the day she’s the closest thing we’re going to get to re-electing Bill Clinton, or to re-electing Al Gore.

    We may not realize it yet, but the left is genetically hard-wired to vote for the candidate whose political DNA is closest to Bill and Al. That’s Hillary. We will end up with her like a moth ends up on the one light in an otherwise dark room.

    Obama is a fad. Dodd and Biden are lame. Richardson isn’t smart enough and Gravel and Kucinich are fringe. Do the math.

    Hillary Clinton will be the first woman president of the USA. That’s pretty cool.

  • To further swantificate on the Rapid Response system. The Democrats should maintain that sort of Clinton-eque offensive/defense system year round. And it should be aimed to support whoever the “point man” is at the time. Right now it’s Reid. Other times it might be one of the candidates.

    With the MSM you have to tell them you’re going to tell them, tell them and then tell them you told them.

  • And Shrill will start whining that Hilary hates free speech in 5…4…3….

    But who cares? It was an elegant warning to shut up or they’ll pull out some more examples. I especially like the mention of Anndy Coulter at a time when the fRightwing is trying to say the group known as Al Quaida in Iraq is somehow the same as the group responsible for Sept. 11th.

  • The KOS doesn’t invite “specific” people to comment and then highlight their comments leaving everyone else out. O’Reilly does.

    He truly is not the smartest person in the room. His issue with the KOS is terribly flawed and shows how stupid O’Reilly really is…and that is why he is so angry. Once again, he’s made himself look ridiculous.

    Bravo to Clinton’s campaign for their reprimand.
    People who listen to O’Reilly hear only what they want to hear.

  • Inherent to Ezra’s observation at the end of your post is this:
    DailyKos community = small d democracy at work. O’Reilly and associates = authoritarianism at work. As a sentient American, I would most obviously choose the former rather than the latter. Yet, for many of my fellow citizens the ambiguity of democratic engagement, and the prosaic adherence to such a discourse are a bit too formidable when weighed against the necessities of daily obligations. For these citizens, I would proffer another observation – O’Reilly enjoys a large audience because he offers these overworked, underthoughtful people an easy way to live out their lives wrapped in a convenient duality of us v. them. -Kevo

  • As I have said here at least once before, while I am still weighing the various candidates, one of the biggest “pros” for Clinton is that I remain convinced that she, more than any of the others, is certain to not get Swiftboated (defining “being Swiftboated” to include taking it lying down).

    So far Obama seems to have a decent rapid response, none of the others have much (except, now, Elizabeth Edwards). But Team Clinton I am totally confident would put any Swiftboaters to a huge fight and would draw enough blood that anyone would think twice before the next negative attack. Given what happened to Gore and Kerry, I consider that a rather important trait in the campaign and in fighting the Republican Menace in general.

  • I dislike Hillary, and I detest the idea that the presidency is devolving into a pseudo-hereditary position. But this was a good response.

  • Some more examples from O’Lielly’s radio and telelvision show of why he is not exactly the right person to be lecturing people when it comes to the subject of hatred:

    1. Regarding the mythical “War on Christmas,” he called anyone who (rigthly) believes that such a thing does not exist “morons” (radio show).”
    2. He called fellow Fox “News” personality Neal Gabler a “rapid dog” (television show).
    3. On his TV show, on a fairly regular basis, he labels individuals or groups of people he disagrees with “pinheads.” He also calls anyone who refuses to appear on The O’Reilly Factor as a “coward.”
    4. He called documentary filmaker Robert Greenwald “a deeply ridiculous person” (television).
    5. He called Cindy Sheehan “dumb” (radio show).

    I could list many more examples, but I have to get ready for work in 10 hours.

    • Comments are closed.