Oh, yeah?

Just heard Fox News call Hillary Clinton “the most polarizing figure in political history.” More than, oh, Richard Nixon? Joseph McCarthy? Spiro Agnew? Abraham Lincoln? Lester Maddox? Joe Lieberman?

  • Fox News: We don’t report the news, we make the news!

  • To add to your list, more than George W. Bush?

  • David

    >”Just heard Fox News call ”

    Figures that the faux fox news dino watches fox news but if CNN came calling to have him on as a liberal democrat he’d be glad to appear so that he could tar and feather some real democrats.

    With dems like you and loserman who needs enemies.

    Go Ned Go!

  • Andrew

    When will people realized that how some feel about George Bush is how others feel about the Clintons?

    How some feel about Fox is how others feel about CNN?

    Too many open mouths and closed minds…

  • Oh, come on, Jeff, according to your pals on the right Joe McCarthy was just misunderstood. Hillary Clinton murdered a guy!

  • Oliver,
    I hate to think how many keyboards you go through, typing with that sledgehammer of y ours.

  • Well, Jeff, you had to know you’d shake the trees of some recidivists if you questioned their altar of ‘fair and balanced’ propaganda. Hillary Clinton polarizes the right wing. It’s the new way of saying They Hate Her. When the wingers accuse the left leaning Dems of hating Bush, they’re projecting, and there are no surprises in that. The first step to healing is facing the problem. And polarizing the base by intemperate statements such as Cheney’s left-baiting ones is not recognized as a problem by the truly base, any more than is the Hillary-bashing.

  • To add to your list, i ve Franklin D. Roosevelt.

  • FOX News counts on their viewership having an incredibly short memory to the point where nostaligia for them is reminiscing what they had for breakfast.
    (with apologizes to Harlan Ellison for appropriating an old quote)

  • I.F. Stoner

    I’ve told them a hundred million times not to exaggerate.

  • beachmom

    To Andrew, I must respond:

    You said this:

    When will people realized that how some feel about George Bush is how others feel about the Clintons?

    How some feel about Fox is how others feel about CNN?

    Your second statement is very flawed, because you infer that CNN is a liberal Fox News. Um. I only wish. CNN has spouted as many RW/GOP talking points as Fox News. The only difference is they couch it within that unbelievably disengenuous “most trusted in news” mantra. If CNN is the liberal’s Fox News, why do I spend more time now than ever sending scathing e-mails to them in their trumpeting RW propaganda? They, like all of the MSM drummed up support for the Iraq War and enabled the Swift Boat Veterans for “Truth” to spread their lies, without a shred of evidence to back up their spectacular charges. Good journalism was thrown out the window in the name of higher ratings for tabloid level talk shows. The truth is that for liberals, ALL 3 cable networks are a torture to watch (only exception is Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, but even he can fall into the Karl Rove trap) as they bash and poke fun of Democrats every day, while the message the WH wants out there, they bend over backwards to accomodate. I suppose you’re mad about their reports on Iraq War, but, in fact, conditions there for ordinary Iraqis are WAY worse than reported.

    And, just for the record, Hillary Clinton is no liberal. I go by her voting record in the Senate, more in line with John McCain, than what Fox News has to say about her. Go to the liberal blogosphere, and you will find barely a whimper of support for her in ’08.

  • WHO said that on FoxNews? If a pundit or guest said that, they are certainly entitled to that opinion.

    Hillary does have a unique set of qualifications as a polarizing figure. While Nixon and McCarthy may have polarized distinct, obvious factions, Hillary began by polarizing right vs left, and has moved on to polarizing the left between strident anti-war and DLC types. She has at least added a new dimension to polarization.

  • I should add, especially if that pundit or guest was speaking specifically about the conservative point of view. “Polarizing” is in the eye of the beholder. Bush is not a “polarizing” figure at all for Republicans, even though conservatives differ with him on many issues, but Bush is clearly a polarizing figure for Democrats. Hillary *is* a good candidate for one of the most polarizing figures from the conservative point of view. Really, “polarizing” has never been the right word, anyway, because it assumes that people don’t know their own minds until the right politician comes along. Left-right is just *naturally* polarized; if a figure comes along who represents *one side* very well, that person is said to be “polarizing” by the other.

    Point-of-view is the biggest problem for liberals in media. They think their POV is the only allowable POV, and all other POV is illegitimate.

  • I’ve just stumbled over a quote I’ve never heard before, but seems to be very popular among liberal blogs: “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

    What that really means is that “liberals do not accept any reality that does not conform to their bias.” So there’s a defined liberal “reality” that says that Bush is polarizing, even though he is not at all polarizing to conservatives, while no liberal politician — even Hillary — can be polarizing like Republican politicians because liberal politicians are not polarizing to *them*.

    Reality, then, is not an omniscient, detached overview of the entire universe, but whatever happens to make Oliver Willis mad.

  • “he is not at all polarizing to conservatives”

    Wow, that’s the stupidest thing I’ve seen today.

    Leadership is exhibited by leaders who are able to transcend the divide between parties, by leaders who even though they disagree with the opposite party, do not pretend as if it doesn’t exist. This is where George Bush has miserably failed where Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and other presidents have prevailed.

  • “[Bush] is not at all polarizing to conservatives”

    Except those conservatives who believe in the conservative value of a smaller federal government that is less intrusive into people’s private lives. ;)

  • Wolfowitz? Perls?

    I’ll hush up now. (BTW just now found your blog; TechFave deff.)


  • Michael

    See? Just mention Hillary Clinton, suggest Fox News is any less than fair and balanced, and watch the libs laugh and the cons fume.

    That’s Blogging 101 for ya right there.

  • LOL. Another example of FoxNews scewing things for an agenda.

    Actually what does this say about the President or another elected official if Hillary Clinton, in only a few short years, is able to gather more thunder then they are? I am not sure that Fox is actually doing their party any favors with these kind of out there pronoucements.

  • Oliver Willis, don’t make me fall out of my chair laughing! Ronald Reagan wasn’t polarizing? Clinton wasn’t polarizing?

    So… Republicans dragged Clinton through impeachment, and Democrats dragged Reagan through Iran-Contra, because of the great love they engendered?

  • Pingback: Winger Blog » Polarization schmolarization()

  • I’m not going to let this one go. Look carefully at Jeff’s list of figures he considers more polarizing than Hillary. Remove Lincoln, the one historical figure:

    Richard Nixon Republican
    Joseph McCarthy Republican
    Spiro Agnew Republican
    Lester Maddox Dixiecrat
    Joe Lieberman “Turncoat” Democrat

    See a pattern? Yes, these are all people who are “polarizing” to *modern liberal Democrats*. (Lincoln’s inclusion in the list is the exception that proves the rule; no one would say that liberals are polarized by this ancient President, yet his is the only case where polarization is literal, in the form of Civil War; the others are there because they all share the uniform trait of being Democratic party boogeymen)

    So, Jeff, liberal Democrats aren’t polarizing? *Ever*? “Most polarizing ever” is clearly hyperbole, but the word polarizing itself is automatic hyperbole; it is an intangible that cannot be properly measured.

  • daudder

    Carson, I humbly submit
    Jimmy Carter
    Howard Dean
    Al Ashrpton
    Jesse Jackson
    Teddy Kennedy
    come on there are loads of “polarizing” democrats

  • Well, thank you, but — no offense, who are you, and what does it matter if you acknowledge that those Democrats are “polarizing” figures deep in a BuzzMachine thread?

    Look up “polarizing” through Google News, find out who the press identifies as polarizing. Apart from Lieberman trying to call Lamont polarizing, and references to broader topics, here are some of the latest examples:

    * “border activist Russ Dove, a polarizing figure” Arizona Daily Star, AZ
    * “Perhaps no politician in America is as polarizing as Congresswoman Katherine Harris, R-Sarasota” WBBH, FL (Hillary as most polarizing is laughable, but no politician in America is as polarizing as minor leaguer Katherine Harris!)
    * “Connecticut voters will choose between a veteran incumbent who proudly works with a polarizing Republican president” Boston Globe, United States
    * “Fox News seems bent on polarizing our political views” iMedia Connection, CA
    * “Falwell carries the weight of being a polarizing figure.” Wyoming News, WY
    * “Clinton would stand a good chance of defeating an ideologically polarizing Republican candidate” Forbes
    * “…this nation has never seen a more polarizing politician than George W. Bush” New York Post, NY

    If there are any recent references in media to “polarizing Democrats”, I can’t find them, apart from one blog. Look up polarizing and Jimmy Carter: nothing. Al Sharpton: nothing. Dean: references again to Bush being the most polarizing president (this nation has never seen a more polarizing president!) Same results with Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson, matches, but nothing calling *them* polarizing.

    And, of course, it’s Jeff Jarvis who breezily dismissed the idea of Hillary Clinton being more polarizing than… Joe Lieberman!!! Do a poll of non-news junkies, and you’ll find that many don’t even remember or know who Lieberman *IS*.

  • Hate to interrupt this conversation of one, obviously if anyone were interested CF would have had some one to talk to [not at], but did want to point out that while I was still reading I noted CF doesn’t recognize ‘truth has a liberal bias’ as a quote from Colbert at the president’s roast.

  • Ruth, do you have any kind of rational, adult counter-point to Carson’s observations?

  • Aksiom, why would I spend the time to argue with CF, not only is the subject worthy of the brief mention on Jeff’s part, CF’s obviously only interrested in making points against Hillary, who is obviously not going to respond.

  • Again.

    Ruth, do you have any kind of rational, adult counter-point to Carson’s observations?