The current issue of Time Magazine has Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the cover, and an article by Joe Klein entitled, “The State of Hillary: A Mixed Record On The Job.” On Joe Scarborough the other morning, they discussed this article (major H/T to Bronwyn’s Harbor for the video):

How cute is Joe Scarborough calling Secretary Clinton his “girlfriend”?? Repeatedly? Evidently, he has NO idea how much competition he has, does he?

And Scarborough makes a great argument about Hillary Clinton “not going rogue.” Of course she is taking the tack Obama has directed her to take. It is not a surprise that Obama would want her to do the HARD work while he “flying at 40,000 ft”.

Just to be clear on Pakistan, the White House does back Secretary Clinton on what she said there. While it may not be the language Mika wants her to use (and honestly, could Hillary Clinton say anything of which Mika approved? Just asking, in a snarky kind of way.)

Don’t even get me started on the whole election thing, though. Don’t even get me started. Good for JOE for pointing out – AGAIN – that the media played a huge role in how she was treated, as we all know already.

The remarks by General Petraeus were telling, telling indeed. That, along with the relationship she has developed with our military personnel is exactly why I contend she would have gotten to Fort Hood tout suite after the tragedy there. Because she truly cares about those serving in uniform. She, unlike our President, has made that support crystal clear.

Okay. About this “unnamed White House source” crapola. I am referring to the “Unnamed White House sources” who claimed Secretary Clinton had made big mistakes in foreign policy since becoming Secretary of State reminded me of the “Unnamed McCain aides” who made the most outrageous, and false, allegations about Gov. Sarah Palin, including that “she didn’t know Africa was a continent.” That is to say, I just cannot take their claims seriously. Especially when one of those high up in the Obama Administration, Jon Favreau, has demonstrated just how much he respected Hillary Clinton when he posted a photo of himself groping a life-size Hillary Clinton cutout on Facebook. Yeah, right. I’m not buying what they’re selling. I’ve seen plenty from those folks already, and have been singularly unimpressed. Whatever.

Anyway, it was an interesting discussion about Secretary Clinton, the work she is doing, and Joe’s undying love for her. All I can say about that is, join the club, Joe, join the club.

Speaking of Secretary Clinton, Saturday is when she commissions the assault ship, USS New York. There will be video available later, which I will then put up. For more on the USS New York, its 7.5 tons of steel from the World Trade Towers, and the emotions it elicits, please watch the video below:

Very moving, and powerful. Great thanks to those who serve aboard this state of the art vessel, and who sought to serve aboard this ship. The motto of the ship is apt: Strength Forged Through Sacrifice. Never Forget.

They won’t forget, and neither will we.

May this ship and its crew have smooth sailing for years to come.

(Photo by Michael Loccisano/Getty Images North America)

UPDATE: Here is the link to NavyTV’s video of the Commission of the USS New York.

MSNBC is devoting the week to news and opinion stories on the dramatically shifting power and influence of women in America. The week’s reports, led by Maria Shriver and John Podesta, is called “A Woman’s Nation.” Below you’ll find videos of two segments that contain impressive statistics on the growing status of women.

Over and over again, in segments I caught today, MSNBC played Hillary Clinton’s powerful but saddening speech about those “18 million cracks.” (I still cannot watch that speech without my throat tightening. Every time I hear it, I’m reminded about what might have been had she received the nomination she won, and then the presidency, which she surely would have won.)

Then there’s the gorilla in the room that we all know: Only two women, ever, have been on a national ticket (Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin) and, then, as VP candidates.

The only two women to run for president, said the men of MSNBC (with the females* nodding along), were the wives of top-level politicians — Elizabeth Dole and Hillary. The three women running currently for governor, including Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, were mentioned as future viable candidates, as was Sarah Palin in passing.

Podesta and Joe Scarborough said there’s no “bench” from which to consider a woman for national office, and the two men referred to the three female candidates as the only potential (emphasis on potent) candidates. Oddly (or typically), in describing the lack of that “bench,” the MSNBC hosts failed to mention the women who currently are governor. Oh, wait – that’s right. Women who are in the same positions as their male counterparts don’t count as much as the men do. How could I forget that reality?

If present and past governors such as Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, and Howard Dean have been easily regarded as part of the male bench — and we all know that male governors are regularly, habitually promoted for national office — why don’t the MSNBC males consider the current female governors serving their states? Are Jodi Rell (CT), Christine Gregoire (WA), Beverly Perdue (NC), and Jan Brewer (AZ) so shunted aside in any national media discussion that no one outside their states even knows who they are? Why don’t any of them merit a mention for national office? Why is a former governor, Sarah Palin, the only female mentioned, and even then, with derision, as if she had no business even being acknowledged as governor of a state? It is a fairly prestigious accomplishment given the fairly low numbers of governors in general. She WON the position. It was not handed to her. Yet, neither she, nor the other female governors are treated the same as their male counterparts.

Ever since I watched that segment on Morning Joe, the MSNBC males’ dismissal of any of the current female governors — not even a word about them, let alone their names — has been eating at me. How dare these males say that women have “no bench” of candidates until they, themselves, realize that the media regularly fail to mention any of these powerful female governors?

Then there are the 13 female U.S. senators. Why do no media outlets ever bring up, say, Senator Maria Cantwell as a potential presidential candidate? Why not Maria Cantwell? If John (yech) Kerry can be the Democratic nominee, why not Cantwell?

Just in case you are keeping score, there are 61 women in the U.S. House of Representatives. As a reminder, there are 435 Representatives in the House.

You know, for a group that is the majority, women are woefully under-represented.

Now, the videos. The first is a segment from Morning Joe followed by Meet The Press.

It’s important to note the discussion in the videos about what MEN need too.

Yes, women have made some strides, particularly in the workplace. But women still have to outperform men for comparable jobs, and even then, they are often passed over (look no further than the Clinton v. Obama race). Politics in general is still firmly entrenched in the Boys Club. Seems the same for the media, if these two videos are par for the course, and after this past election, I have no doubt that they are.

And so it goes. I guess this old adage is still true: the more things change, the more they remain the same. I’m ready for a change. How about you?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

* His co-host, Mika Brzezinski, and guest, Maria Shriver — the two women in the segment — were astonishingly silent on Scarborough’s boisterous “no bench” imbroglio.

Yes, it’s all her fault.

Not only is the media actively working overtime to shrug off, ignore or try to explain away his verbal attacks on a young girl, but then they turn all their outraged disapproval on the girl’s Mother. Because some how, some way she’s responsible.

Watch the videos below and see pm317’s excellent article and video here. Does any one in the media take him to the woodshed? Does anyone directly hold him to account for verbally denigrating a young girl not once, but twice on a pre recorded national television show. And he did it not just one night, but two nights in a row. And then on a third night he continues the attacks by joking them off “as in questionable taste.” And all the media can muster against him is a half hearted finger wag – if that.

But oh, the Mother. Yes, that woman. She’s the cause. She gets their blood boiling. They’ve got plenty to say about her.

But I can’t help wondering why? What really and truly is this Mother’s great sin? Joe Scarborough tried to ask that on his show this morning, but some how all those guns just had to swing back around and point at the Mother. So I’m left with the only person I’ve come across who is willing to address this question – Kathleen Parker, Washington Post Writers Group Columnist, in her June 10 article Will Sarah Palin’s Undisciplined Operation Cost Her?

Washington, D.C.: I would like you to address what it is about Gov. Palin that incites such vehement hatred in the left. Sarah Silverman had a “comedy” routine about Palin being raped by black gangsters; David Letterman calls her a slut and “jokes” about her 14-year-old daughter becoming pregnant by a baseball player. All of this is greeted with yuks by so-called liberals. I can just imagine the umbrage if somebody substituted “Michelle Obama” for Sarah Palin’s name or “Sasha Obama” for Willow’s. And let’s not even discuss the loathsome comments about her that you can find on this very newpaper’s web site. To me, Palin’s disorganized staff and her feuds with GOP staffers aren’t the issues; it’s the hatred she brings out in otherwise reasonably sane people. Your thoughts?

Kathleen Parker: I may not be much help here because I don’t get it either. Then again, I don’t get the hatred directed at me from the right when I criticize Palin. It’s a pretty nasty world out there.

Nah, “it goes with the territory” is an excuse. Not a reason.

Re: Letterman: Listen, Letterman is a comedian. Comedians that don’t go over the line are not funny. If you said she looks slutty, that’s over the line. If I say it, it’s over the line. Why wouldn’t Letterman say it – have you been on a plane?

What? It’s his job? So it’s a comedian’s job is to verbally attack 14 year old girls? Let’s try again.

Kathleen Parker: I don’t have a problem with raunchy humor, but time and place are everything. In a nightclub, fine. But Letterman is sort of an American institution. It just seems to me that when a woman is running for public office, we should avoid sexualizing her.

Okay, I censored myself before so I’ll say it now. I also think it’s out of line for a woman to sexualize her candidacy, which Palin did. Just ask Rich Lowry, who wrote that he had to sit up a little straighter when she winked during the vp debate. So, maybe when you play the flirt and invite males to see starbursts bouncing off the walls (Lowry again), then maybe you invite the sexual punchline. I’m wobbling here.

So there it is. The daughter is fair game, because the Mother has a wink that can make a man see starbursts. Get that, it’s all about “the wink.” Wow.

No misogyny there. Nope. None.

The feminist media can stand proud and tall.

Yes, we’ve come a long way baby!

But just for the record Letterman, in a just world, you would (and should) have been fired the first night you uttered those words against a 14 year old girl.

——-

MSNBC’s Morning Joe – 6/11/09

——

MSNBC’s Morning Joe – 6/12/09

Let’s not mention Pakistan, okay?

As they say in that clip, Pakistan is bad news. Ugh. And they have nukes. I really, really do try not to think about Pakistan.

Next, yeah, well, it’s Bob Woodward, but it’s plenty interesting:

UPDATE #2 TOMORROW at 1 p.m. ET, Andrea Mitchell interviews Hillary Clinton for the HOUR on MSNBC. (And I’m still lookin for the Robert Baer interview re Hillary’s smart views on North Korea, with which the old spymaster Baer agrees!)

Grab your barf bag! NEXT UP, Carl Bernstein’s analysis of Hillary, but that goes on, in the NEXT video, into a far more thoughtful discussion of the challenges that the Obama administration faces! So do NOT miss the videos below (despite Carl Bernstein!) and another video with former WaPo international reporter Robin Wright, Al Hunt, and others:

“BARACK OBAMA IS SHOWING MASTERFUL LEADERSHIP” ???? GIVE ME A BREAK, CARL!!! You burned out in the early 1970s, apparently, as an astute journalist.

HERE’s another discussion with Robin Wright, Al Hunt, et al:

What else is going on in the world?

With all the populist sentiment generated from the economic slowdown by politicians, CNBC “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer is seeing eerie similarities with the comments of President Barack Obama and the words of a communist revolutionary.

Cramer, appearing on MSNBC’s Feb. 2 “Morning Joe,” drew comparisons between remarks between the first head of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin, and Obama. Obama criticized Wall Street’s moneymaking on Jan. 30, when he said there would be a time “for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses. Now’s not that time. And that’s a message that I intend to send directly to them.”

Whoa – he sure doesn’t mince words, does he?

Cramer said that was similar to Lenin’s writings. “Let me tell you something, we heard Lenin,” Cramer said. “There was a little snippet last week that was, ‘Now is not the time for profits.’ Look – in Lenin’s book, ‘What Is to Be Done?’ is simple text of what I always though was for the communists, it was remarkable to hear very similar language from ‘What Is to Be Done?’ which is we have no place for profits.”

According to Cramer, China, which is the United States’ largest debt holder – about $682 billion – is currently faring better with capitalism, even though that government has operated communism for the last half century.

Oh, but it gets better:

“Thank heavens for the Chinese communists, deeply rooted in a profit government,” Cramer said. “Because we have decided that profits have no place in the system.”

Cramer wasn’t sure what phase of the teaching of Lenin the United States was heading, but he narrowed it down to two.

“It’s the time for nationalization, and I’ll say this,” Cramer said. “Either the new economic policy Lenin, or it’s the initial storm-the-winter palace Lenin. I’m not quite sure yet. It’s a mid-’20s situation. It could go either way.”

Gee, Jim – why don’t you tell us how you really feel??

His interview with Scarborough continued:

“Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough asked Cramer about the $100 billion in tax cuts given to people who don’t pay taxes and how close that was to socialism. “This is as close to unprecedented of a total all-out socialist bill as I’ve ever seen in my life,” Scarborough said.

“They pretend to work, we pretend to pay,” Cramer replied. “I think that the real issue here is that socialism was always pretty good for creating jobs. I felt there were other forms of economy that actually confiscated jobs and socialism would be a real step-up from what we’re [at] here.”

I am getting the distinct impression that Cramer is none too fond of Obama’s economic solutions! But in all fairness, I need to include the final paragraph of the story:

Cramer hasn’t been afraid to play the socialism/communism card when attacking politicians. In November 2007, he called New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo a “communist” for being in his attacks on now-failed mortgage lender Washington Mutual.

But Mr. Cramer is not the only economist who has problems with to Obama’s plan. Approximately 100 signed onto an ad published in the New York Times concur that Obama’s plan is not the right one. Here’s the ad (and you can click HERE to access the text under, “Mr. President, We Disagree”):

I’m glad at least some folks are looking at these plans with a critical eye, and not just jumping on the bandwagon (or being pressured to do so). This is our money, and we have already thrown away way too much of it with the first bailout plan, which had NO oversight. Whatever plan we institute, it must have clear oversight and accountability. No more throwing money at problems and hoping something will stick.

As for Cramer’s comparisons, what do you think? Justified critique or hyperbole?

The article goes on to say, “Murkowski, up for reelection in 2010, is nervously awaiting word on whether John McCain’s former running mate will run against her in the GOP primary. But she says Palin is the one who should be nervous.

But Murkowski says a run against her would be fraught with risk. If Palin lost, her stock would drop just ahead of a potential 2012 presidential run. And if she won, she’d be a backbencher in a chamber that is dominated by seniority — (But these next comments are the ones that really stands out to me,) and would have to begin her presidential campaign as soon as she took office.”

“If she wants to be president, I don’t think the way to the presidency is a short stop in the United States Senate,” Murkowski said.

And then nothing more about those comments in the politico article. The writer ignores the obvious? It is just screaming out at me…

Then, this morning, Andrea Mitchell was on Morning Joe, and she was discussing the possibility of Palin running for Senate. While she was speaking a graphic comes on the screen, and says “If she wants to be president, I don’t think the way to the presidency is a short stop in the United States Senate.”

So, HERE it comes, I think to myself! Surely Andrea, or Mika or JOE will point out the obvious! I wait…and what happens? Andrea completely IGNORES the quote from Murkowski, completely ignores the quote that was in the graphic, completely ignores the obvious. So, what DOES Andrea do? She brings up that the RNC paid an additional $30,000 in accessories for Palin during the campaign.

Are you kidding me?

She completely ignores the story at hand, (which I will get to) and again DUMPS on Palin and this stupid wardrobe-gate. Good lord… Get over it Andrea! Our ability to accessorize is what separates us from the animals, for crying out loud. Can we pleeeeeeeeease get over the Palin wardrobe *scandal* and move on? This has been covered to death. Obama spent $7 Million on a one time faux White House Greek God temple monstrosity. The RNC spent $180,000 on clothes and accessorizes for Palin and her entire family. (and they looked fabulous!) This just makes Andrea look so ridiculous. Ugh, journalists!

Anyhoo, my POINT to this story is the blaringly obvious irony as stated by Murkowski, that went completely ignored by the media. And I know the smart readers of this blog know what I am talking about.

“If she wants to be president, I don’t think the way to the presidency is a short stop in the United States Senate.”

Uhm, and why not? It worked for Obama. Remember, Obama was in the Senate for two years when he announced his run for President, having served only 144 days. Remember this:

So, why did Andrea completely ignore this point, when the graphic came up? Why do those in the media ignore these little things? (rhetorical question) Would it have killed anyone to point out the obvious, that it worked for Obama? Mitchell completely ignores the obvious, but instead takes the opportunity to twist the knife just a little more.

Here we had a political story, involving two accomplished women, a Senator and a Governor, and they were discussing their political futures, and what does Andrea Mitchell do? Brings up Palin’s clothes! UGH UGH UGH!!! I am surprised she didn’t start talking about PMS and nail polish, too.

Anyway, having witnessed an Obama win, with him having served only 144 days in the Senate, I would think Palin’s years as mayor, and governor, and two years as a Senator would be more than enough experience to run for President. (and a much more interesting and relevant, and informative news story then the price of her accessorize.)

And, as far as Murkowski, and her comments, if Sarah Palin is anything like me, she will run, because when someone *tells* me I can’t do something, I usually do it.

The headline on the MSN homepage (via MSNBC) declares, “Dem sources: Clinton to help wife get State job.”

This headline refers to the fact that President Clinton is disclosing his financial records and those of his charitable work. But the sexist opportunity was too good for MSNBC to pass up. President Clinton is not helping his wife “get a job,” he’s merely presenting financial documents to Obama’s transition team. Ostensibly, all potential cabinet members and their spouses are also going through this process now. The big difference, however, is that the Obama team made Clinton’s financial records a campaign issue.

Can you imagine the headline turned the other way? I don’t recall seeing, “Liddy Dole to help husband get job” or “Mary Matalin to help James Carville get job.”

There are major problems with the MSNBC headline. First, of course, it presupposes that Senator Clinton wants the job. There’s a report today in the New York Times that she’s “hesitant” to give up the independence of her senate seat. But of course independence is what it’s all about.

A key element of Obama Sexism in this recent campaign was the constantly pushed narrative that Hillary was dependent on President Clinton for her senate seat and her presidential campaign. Chris Matthews infamously said “on ‘Morning Joe’ [that] the reason Hillary Clinton won her New York Senate seat and is a front-runner in the presidential race is because Bill Clinton ‘messed around.’”

And who can forget Greg Craig of the Obama campaign? A former Clinton classmate and friend, when discussing Hillary’s important role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland, claimed that Hillary Clinton was an appendage to her husband and only met with “the women”:

She traveled to Ireland with her husband and met with the women, and the women, of course, were heroic in their work for peace. But she can’t take credit for bringing the women together. They were the courageous ones that did it themselves. What she said was, “It’s a good thing you’re doing it. We’re all for you. I hope you’re successful.” That’s not instrumental. That’s not bringing peace to Ireland.

Of course Hillary never claimed to have brought peace to Northern Ireland. The Obama Sexism trope from Craig is even more glaring when you ask, What foreign policy credentials did Obama have? Hillary was President Clinton’s closest adviser and she was assigned many important tasks in his administration. But Craig, like MSNBC now, perpetuates Obama Sexism in order to diminish Hillary Clinton.

Step aside, LD! We have the genius now:

Time-intensive real-life duties have forced DCMediaGirl to suspend her radio show and blogging for a short while. (Can you imagine what it’s like in most media headquarters these days?) But I have a strong hunch that she would love what Joe Scarborough said today as a panelist on NBC’s Meet The Press today. Tom Brokaw — the debate moderator who’s so sleep-inducing that pharmaceutical companies are hoping he may provide the next breakthrough cure for chronic insomnia — set up Joe for some insightful commentary:

MR. BROKAW: You, you’ve been through campaigns before, Joe Scarborough, you’re a keen student of what’s going on. McCain is beginning to run out of some options, but we’ve been there before with him.

I think you’ll like Joe’s reply:

MR. SCARBOROUGH: We have been there before with him. A year ago John McCain’s political career was pronounced dead on arrival. Remember, he had that bloated campaign staff in the summer of ‘07, and then of course as we got closer to, to the executioner walking out on stage and finishing it, John McCain came back.

And McCain always closes strongly.

I, I just–I, I want to offer a warning to the Barack Obama campaign, which I’m sure they won’t listen to, but I would say go to Florida, go to Ohio, get out of North Carolina. You don’t have to win 350 electoral votes.

These campaigns always tighten up. We are not a 60-40 country, we are a 51-49 country. And maybe this year it’s 51 Democratic, 49 Republican.

But it’s going to be close in the end, and he may regret spending time in North Carolina. It–maybe it looks like he’s going to win now, but I’m telling you, as we’ve seen, these national polls, when they tighten, all these state races close.

I would just be concerned about getting too clever by half. …

How ’bout that?!?!?! (Hope you get to see this, DCMediaGirl!)

Read the full transcript.

I don’t watch MSNBC, but the folks over at Olbermann Watch are doing a heck of a job tracking that dysfunctional group. Check this out:

God forgive me for ever comparing Olbermann to Edward R. Murrow. Olbermann not only has jumped the shark, but apparently he is off of his meds. He exhibits a personality disorder that at least ensures NBC a train wreck on air. At this rate we may see Chris “Tingle Leg” Matthews throw down with Keith. That would be sweet. Two drama queens schwacking each other. Now that would be entertainment.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAz6O0xcEuI[/youtube]

My favorite moment from today’s program? A hilarious feature called The Life of Bloggers: Cheetos-Eating, Star Wars Watching, Living in Basements?

And for those of you who find my Joe love suspicious: This is a topsy-turvy election cycle. If fairness and serious analysis is found in unsuspected places so be it. At least we have someowhere to turn.

At issue: This week’s New Yorker cover.

Honestly, is this what we’ve come to? Is this the most important issue the press has to focus on in this campaign? Is this really worth all the faux agita and high dudgeon it’s stirred up?

Just to be clear, here’s what I care about.

Two years ago my then-husband talked me into buying a house. I did so and took out a traditional 30-year mortgage. Thank God I wasn’t talked into one of those goofy ARMs.

Last fall I put the house on the market. No takers. I’ve reduced the price $50,000 and thrown in every conceivable goodie imagineable. No dice. Even if I rent the place I’d still be about $800 per month in the hole. In the meantime, as I wait for this house to move half my take-home pay – that’s half – is going to pay the mortgage. And that doesn’t count the money I’m sinking into the house to entice a buyer – landscaping, repairs, etc. Just to be clear, the house is located Montgomery County, a decent suburb of D.C. It’s close to shopping and public transportation. It’s a great deal at the price it’s listed for. But I can’t give the damn thing away.

I’m sure that there are a lot of people in my position.

I’m concerned about whether the Bush administration’s meddling could cause Pakistan’s government to fall. I’m also concerned about whether the same crowd that brought us the Iraq war could embark on a demented mission in Iran as an au revoir to the country. Hey, there’s still plenty of time. The Bush people could do a lot of damage between now and January.

So pardon me for not giving a damn about what the New Yorker wants to feature on its cover. Some of us have more important things to worry about.

Now let’s take a stroll down memory lane and take a look at Joe Scarborough giving Hillary Clinton some love:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0ojemY6cN4[/youtube]

It’s also gotten a fair bit of coverage in the press.  Roger Simon (Politico) had this to say yesterday…

When I saw a video of Hillary Clinton downing a shot of Crown Royal whiskey in Bronko’s Restaurant and Lounge in Crown Point, Ind., on Saturday night, I was delighted to see that she has finally learned what campaigning for president is all about.

He went on to discuss Obama’s remarks at that high-dollar fundraiser last week, and Hillary’s reaction to it once the story broke.  

But Clinton’s statement was not as important as her downing that shot of whiskey.

Presidential campaigning is about image making, and there is no better image than being a man (or woman) of the people.

What is important is their image.

Which is why the whiskey that Hillary threw back could be the Shot Heard Round the World if handled right.

If I were her campaign manager, I would be making the ad already:

Video: Barack Obama in a tuxedo at a fat-cat fundraiser.

Audio: “Barack Obama drinks Chateau D’Yquem and eats artisanal cheeses.”

Video: Hillary Clinton throws back a whiskey at Bronko’s Restaurant.

Audio: “Hillary Clinton knows how to drink like a real American!”

Video: Clinton slams her shot glass on the bar and wipes her mouth with the back of her hand.

Audio: “I’m Hillary Clinton and I approve this ad. I also approve Jell-O shots.”

Video: Clinton grins and motions to the bartender for another.

Audio: “Hillary Clinton. She drinks like you do.”

Source

Then there’s this article, which I absolutely love.  I wanna meet this bartender and shake the guy’s hand – maybe buy Russ Panning a pint.  Seems he’s a minor celebrity now – folks really want to get the dirt on Hillary’s visit, and of how she “threw back” that shot – multiple shots (?) – of whiskey.  He set them straight and said she had one with a beer & pizza, and sipped her shot.

Bartender describes Clinton’s shot, beer
April 15, 2008

That’s what we do here, we sip our shots with our beer.’

“They said, `You don’t sip shots, you toss `em back.’ I told them they don’t know what they’re talking about, and they told me I was getting combative,” he said.

Snip

She spent a lot of time talking to just about everybody in the restaurant. She sat down and had dinner.

Snip

She spent about two hours here,” he said.

Sen. Barack Obama has accused Clinton of pandering to the working class with her stop at the Main Street eatery, telling a crowd in Pittsburgh on Monday that candidates will do anything for votes, even “come around, with TV crews in tow, to throw back a shot and a beer.”

But Panning said the entire scene felt genuine.

“I just asked her if she wanted a shot, and she said, `Sure,’ ” he said. “Nobody suggested I offer it to her or anything like that.”

So BO’s accusing her of pandering with this stop for dinner eh?  Well here’s what Hillary’s campaign folks had to say in response to that nonsense…

“With all due respect, this is the same politician who spent six days posing for clichéd camera shots that included bowling gutterballs, walking around a sports bar, feeding a baby cow, and buying a ham at the Philly market (albeit one that cost $99.99 a pound). Sen. Obama’s speeches won’t hide his condescending views of Americans living in small towns.”–Clinton Campaign

Ok I’ll be fair – I played a clip of Hillary hanging out with regular folks so here’s a clip of Sen. Obama at the bowling alley.  

Ok so this is a little tongue in cheek.  I can’t believe people are giving her shit for stopping off for dinner and talking with voters about the things they care about.  Beer & pizza… that’s about as genuine as you can get where I come from.  And from what I’ve heard of Hillary pizza’s about all she gets to eat on the campaign trail so this is hardly a departure for her.  It’s not like she’s eating salads full of arugula or anything ;o)