Foxy Lady

[DeepModem Mom]

WP: Foxy Lady
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 2, 2008

Maybe it was when Bill O'Reilly called her a socialist for wanting to redistribute income and she said she was following in Teddy Roosevelt's footsteps.

Maybe it was when O'Reilly said her health plan would bankrupt the country and "I don't want to be paying for someone who's taking heroin and drinking a bottle of gin a day," and she shot back: "But I assume you want to pay for some hardworking family whose kid has juvenile diabetes."

Maybe it was when O'Reilly said she was as polarizing as he is, and she said she had accumulated scars by fighting for what she believes in.

It was clear that Hillary Clinton acquitted herself quite well in the Fox News sit-down, in part because politicians can score more runs when they're forced to play hardball. She also seems to be in a comfort zone lately as Barack Obama struggles through a tough month. The question is whether this is causing the media, which have all but written her off, to reassess Clinton's chances.

For some on the left, the mere fact of the interview was insulting...

***

The New Republic's Isaac Chotiner has some thoughts on why O'Reilly changed his once-disparaging tone toward HRC:

"First, Clinton became a serious candidate for the presidency. You might assume that this would make Clinton an even larger target for O'Reilly, but for whatever reason he is obsessed with putting on a facade of even-handedness when elections roll around. So while he clearly favors Republicans, he knew he couldn't continue bashing Clinton and hope to appear neutral.

"Second -- and this also has to do with his solipsism -- O'Reilly seemed to develop a weird empathy for Senator Clinton. As O'Reilly has become more famous over the past 5 or 6 years, he has become a target of ridicule in the liberal media, and he has begun to develop a bit of a persecution complex . . . So, rather than mocking her, he would instead rant about the ways in which she was picked on by the media."...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/02/AR2008050201146_pf.html

[Vincardog]

1. No Democratic candidate or elected official should ever legitimize FAUX SnewZ by appearing of their

RW SMEAR SHOW.

[DeepModem Mom]

3. I'd rather they not appear either, although an article I posted earlier...

(which pointed out that both candidates have now appeared multiple times on Fox) indicated that there were maybe some potential voters for our candidates among Fox viewers. I would never have thought that, but I guess it's possible.

I had an elderly (virtually shut-in) relative who watched it purely for entertainment, and not because he was as right-wing politically as Fox.

[Vincardog]

6. Going on FAUX for potential democratic voters is like going to the PLayBoy Mansion looking for

missionaries. HRC appears on that station because they are broadcasting to her target demographic.

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. Faux should be ignored. They are a third-world network

No Dem should legitimize them by appearing in their studios.

[PDJane]

4. There's a lot of third world news outlets

Who are freer than fox and make more sense.

[DCKit]

5. The elections, the polls and the controversies are engineered...

None of them makes any sense. These are the same bullshit tactics used to excuse *'s occupation of the WH (twice). Unfortunately, people vote for the perceived "winner" so she might still have a shot - or at least enough to bump Obama off.

If they manage to convince us AGAIN that the "polls" are close enough, we might believe in the next stolen election. Personally, I don't see much difference between Clinton and McCain, and that's exactly the way the polls are leading us. The MSM enables them and makes it PLAUSIBLE.

Woe to U.S..