Matthew Balan @ Newsbusters:
MSNBC’s on-air personalities were plainly in awe of Bill Clinton on Wednesday night. Moments after the former President finished his speech at the Democratic National Convention, they kept up the praise for almost 20 minutes. Chris Matthews gushed over the “strong offensive” Clinton gave for President Obama. Al Sharpton exclaimed, “Elvis and Bubba showed up tonight.”
Ed Schultz was the most enthusiastic for the former Arkansas governor: “Affable, effective – as a Democrat, it doesn’t get any better. I’m sitting here – I’m giddy…I just think President Clinton just did Barack Obama the biggest favor he could have ever done.” Rachel Maddow and former McCain campaign advisor Steve Schmidt agreed that Clinton’s address was “powerful,” with Schmidt exclaiming that “I wish to God, as a Republican, we had someone on our side who had the ability to do that. We don’t. It would be great if we did. Just an amazing performance.” [audio available here; video below the jump]
Matthews was the first to chime in after the former President stepped away from the podium, and depicted him as an attack dog extraordinaire against the Republicans: “Clinton came in and beat up the other side. There’s no other phrase for it. He took down all the Republican arguments on welfare….hit them hard where they were weak – on obstructionism, on the failed economy they left this President with; beat them on the arguments of Medicare, on the arguments of welfare. On every charge they’ve made against Obama, he took it back and threw it back at them….It put them on the retreat.”
Andrea Mitchell then came in and emphasized the “screaming and shouting here when the video to introduce him first came up. When he came out, he had this audience.” She continued with her own praise of Clinton: “Now, obviously, he has his own perspective, but as a political document, this speech was extraordinary, and I think it was classic Clinton.’
A few minutes later, Maddow turned to Schmidt, who initially remarked that the Democrat’s speech was “extraordinary. It’s a virtuoso political performance. There’s no other politician in America in the last generation person that could hold the attention of a crowd, have them yelling and screaming.” After making his lament about the apparent lack of an equivalent speaker on the Republican side, the former McCain added that the address was a “very powerful endorsement for President Obama; another good night for them.” Schultz then gave his two cents about how “giddy” he was over the former President.
Andrea Mitchell then came in and emphasized the “screaming and shouting here when the video to introduce him first came up. When he came out, he had this audience.” She continued with her own praise of Clinton: “Now, obviously, he has his own perspective, but as a political document, this speech was extraordinary, and I think it was classic Clinton.’
Of course MSNBC is biased—-just like FOX. The only difference is MSNBC doesn’t distort the facts like FOX.
I still don’t get this whole Bill Clinton infatuation.
The man was a liar, a serial adulterer, committed two felonies in office (Lied to a Federal Judge then a Grand Jury, and was Censured almost impeached in office. How in the hell is that man even allowed on government property without being ridiculed for the scumbag he is. Jimmy Carter in my eyes was a bad president, but I can give him a pass for being an idealistic fool. Clinton was a calculating, conniving con artists who didn’t flinch when his antics were discovered. Like a long term liar he doubled down on his lies and was supported by his wife who only thought of her time in future politics and sold her soul to make it happen.
Anytime Clinton shows up to a public event the RNC should have groups of people do nothing but shout Monica Lewinsky at him
Except for Krauthammer, all of the Fox commentators rated the speech from good to great. The main knock on it was that it was allegedly too long. People have been saying that about Clinton’s speeches since time immemorial. Only the politically uninformed are shocked, SHOCKED that Clinton gives long speeches. It’s because he goes into detail that others avoid.
How about the contradiction between the GOP platform with respect to calling for universal criminalization of abortion, with no exceptions for anything and the Romney/Ryan plan to cut $810 billion from Medicaid, 50% of those recipients being children? Who would pay for the care of Down’s syndrome children, born to single mothers? Who ever previously brought this point to public attention?
Clinton had so many great lines, no matter how you felt about the points being made. My favorites being:
“The GOP campaign message: we broke it; it’s taking you too long to fix it; so now give it back to us.”
“Arithmetic”
“Takes some brass”
But it was chock full of details, explained in a way that everyone could understand, and delivered with just the right doses of humor and inspiration. It was a great speech, no matter what one’s politics.
You are also shocked, SHOCKED that MSNBC was effusive in praise? I am supposed to be shocked, SHOCKED that Krauthammer wasn’t impressed? Or that F/A wasn’t impressed?
Once again, the GOP platform calls for the total criminalization of abortion, with no exceptions for anything. This is an extreme position, which is certainly not supported by more than a minority of voters within the GOP, much less the nation. Why was this platform plank adopted? Because the people who attend both political conventions represent the most extreme, hard core membership of the respective parties.
Romney himself has stated his own position clearly. To wit:
“My position has been clear throughout this campaign,” Romney said. “I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57501172/romney-my-views-on-abortion-rights-are-clear/
I’ve heard Nancy Pelosi describe her own position in precisely the same words. Note — not just “life” of the mother, but “health” of the mother, with “health” including mental health, which, as we all know, can mean anything.
Now, is Romney happy with the GOP abortion plank? No way; he knows that it will be used against him (playing into the “war on women” narrative), which is why he took such pains to repudiate that plank. Why didn’t he try to get it removed at the convention, the way that Obama did with regard to inserting a plank that he didn’t like having been removed (which was removed for precisely the same reasons that the GOP plank was inserted, that being that the delegates at a political convention represent the most extreme hard core membership of the party)? Because, had Romney dared to try, he’d have been met with total rebellion. So he just let it go and personally repudiated it — OUTSIDE of the GOP convention hall.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Larry, here is the link to the GOP 2012 platform. Rather than pass on erroneous propaganda by a fact challenged media and Dem politicians, why don’t you go right to the source, and tell us just what page in that platform’s PDF calls for the total criminalization of abortion, with no exceptions for anything?
You’re a busy guy, so let me give you a hint. It doesn’t. What it says that is that the platform is opposed to any federal or public funds used for abortion, whether for domestic or foreign aid use. That forcing religious institutions to provide and pay for health plans that provide this service tramples their 1st Amendment right. And lastly, encourages the goal of strengthening the Born Alive Infant Protect Act to provide for “civil and criminal penalties on healthcare providers who fail to provide treatment and care to an infant who survives an abortion, including early induction delivery where the death of the infant is intended.“
Therefore the only “criminalization” that would occur as a result of the GOP platform is that any medical practitioner who performs a partial birth, late term abortion, and doesn’t provide treatment for an infant who survives that procedure, will incur civil and/or criminal penalties. It doesn’t even state that they would ban these particularly heinous practice… and I say that as one with mixed perspectives on abortions.
Always go to the source data, and please stop relying on partisan media headlines, and Congressional representative talking points, that summarize that source incorrectly for a political agenda.
@liberal1(objectivity):
If you truly believe that, you are beyond help, reason, or sanity.
Two years of state and federal actions and stated intentions speak louder than a platform document that’s been fine tuned to make it all sound as reasonable as possible–particularly when the presidential and vice-presidential candidates have attempted to separate themselves from anything in it that might still strike moderate voters as questionable.
Hi Mata (#4): Points well made and points taken. Thanks for the link. I’ll review, respond, and modify my statement, if required. – LW/HB
P.S. Here’s the language on Pages 13-14:
I read that as consistent with my earlier characterization.
Larry, that is not a correct characterization. You do know what the 14th Amendment protection is, yes? Rights of citizens to equal and due process of our law. Any Constitutional amendment (good luck with that happening anyway) is only extending due process rights to an unborn child, and recognizing that life as a future citizen of the US. There would be no “criminalization” except in the instance where due process were unequivocally denied without judicial process and access.
Simplified, it limits abortion-on-demand (without a the woman informing the father i.e.) and allows for a due process period to examine that child’s rights, were such an amendment to come to fruition. This is nothing resembling “criminalization of abortion, with no exceptions”. Point in fact, all it does is provide for legal recourse on behalf of the child, with no predetermination of the judicial outcome as “criminalization”.
What would be more convoluted is that, since an unborn child cannot file a lawsuit themselves, it would fall to those acting as their legal guardian to do so… i.e. either the mother or father of the child, or the parents of a minor. As a matter of fact, how such an amendment would be interpreted, or work, is still a point of contention, but certainly only those with some standing could even attempt filing any lawsuit. I really don’t see how such an amendment would function in our current legal world clearly, but it’s prudent to note that any due process leaves open the possibility a mother could prevail in any particular lawsuit under certain circumstances.
But since getting any such amendment thru via a Constitutional Convention is highly remote at best, it’s really a moot point.
This stuff, in varying phrasing, has been in the GOP platform since 1976. Hardly a new entry. And again, no… it’s not criminalizing anyone to increase those recognized as beneficiaries of Constitutional rights of due process. Absurd notion.
BTW, Larry… this diary entry by one of RedState’s “diary members”, John A. Brill, may be able to explain the concept of due process on behalf of a fetus. You’ll see it’s nothing as you envision.
Hi Mata, The 14th Amendment reference was only a portion of this particular plank, to wit:
The meaning could not be more clear.
Note the “and.” They are not simply talking about an amendment to broaden application of 14th Amendment to the embryo/fetus/unborn child. In the context of the first of the above two quotes, which unambiguously asserts that the fundamental individual right to life of the embryo/fetus/unborn child shall not be infringed, the new proposed “human life” constitutional amendment is clear.
I enjoyed reading and considering John Brill’s thoughtful analysis and I agree with him that his way of viewing things offers a potential framework for resolving this intractable issue. However, I’m very certain that this view is not congruent with the GOP platform, as written, and has zero chance of being accepted by an important core constituency of the GOP at any time in the foreseeable future.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Now Larry, you can’t be inserting an unstated, imaginary meaning you *want* for language that’s been in the GOP platform since 1976. I’m glad you took the time to read Brill’s analysis since the genuine intent – deliberately muddied by those filling your kepi with interpretations such as criminalizing all abortions, with no exceptions” – is more self evident. But it’s highly unfair for you to read that common platform language, and then personally attach some nefarious and alternative meaning to it for political portrayal. It’s as simple as this…. the GOP wanted to criminalize all abortions in their official platform, there would be a stated quest to repeal Roe v Wade. While that may be an unstated, and unmanifested quest, it is not a platform goal.
Due process rights granted to the unborn is just that… due process rights to a future citizen which can only be exercised by someone with jurisdiction and standing. Nothing more, nothing less. Since the unborn cannot speak for themselves, the fathers are often left without a say, and parents of minors are also left out of the equation, such a recognition allows for those with that legal say to fight for the child’s due process rights. Surely you can’t be against others who are also vested in the child’s rights?
Hi Mata, I’ll give you the last word in #11 but decline the opportunity to address the question stated in the last sentence. I’ve enjoyed the exchange. Thanks. – Larry W/HB
Between blogs, Twitter, and several other venues, I honestly have no idea why any conservative would waste their time watching the DNC. Tonights choices came down to washing the Harley or watching liberals spew idiotic crap on TV…Needless to say the HD looks really good right now…