From Crooks and Liars blog:
Colleen Rowley on The Factor
I try to post requested video when I can. [Susan’s note: John captured this interview at my request. What a guy!] Former FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley joined Bill so he could tell her that she was making a big mistake going to join Cindy Sheehan’s vigil in Crawford.
Video-WMP
Rowley, a former special agent in the FBI’s Minneapolis office, gained fame in 2002 for her criticism of FBI leadership. She said officials failed to act on information that cast suspicion on some Sept. 11 hijackers in the months before they carried out their attacks, and was later named one of Time magazine’s people of the year for her efforts.
Rowley is running as a Democrat against Republican John Kline for Minnesota’s 6th Congressional District. Reports the Chicago Tribune on July 26: “In Minnesota, the Democrats have recruited FBI whistle-blower Colleen Rowley to challenge Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), saying her campaign will focus on ‘ethics in government and effective national security.'”
And, Politics in Minnesota Weekly Report has a fascinating insider’s rundown on the potential of Rowley’s campaign, and her opponent, BELOW:
While Kline has won decisively the last two elections, we must admit a race with Rowley could be different. It will be different for Kline, but most of all it could be very different for Minnesota. With two statewide races ahead of the congressional race, the campaigns will be battling for television time unlike ever before.
We also believe that Rowley’s uncertain and non-political personality will be something to watch. When Rowley was going to run in 2004, people were very excited to think that she and child advocate Patty Wetterling would bring unprecedented national attention and funds to their respective races. Wetterling succeeded in doing that, she just didn’t get elected.
But Rowley has the potential to bring support to her campaign from a broader national base. She is better known in the country than Wetterling ever was. She will attract Democratic funders and raising cash shouldn’t be an issue, unless Rowley turns out to be a less-conventional candidate.
On paper Rowley is an amazing candidate. The problem is that her unconventional or dated style won’t play well in the suburbs among the women whose votes she’d need to triumph. And, while she certainly deserved the national attention she received; her handling of the media, and the display of public communication skills matched her brainy appearance more than it matched the chance to develop a political following.
Meanwhile, Kline has proven that if there is one thing he doesn’t do, it is make mistakes. Kline handled Theresa Daly extremely well as she challenged issues of war and the economy, and his previous campaigns against Luther were virtually flawless.
All in all, if Rowley runs, it will be a race to watch. But, early handicapping says unless Rowley updates her style, and develops the discipline a Congressional candidate needs to raise funds, Kline will be re-elected.
Politics in Minnesota Weekly Report, June 2005
Her “dated style”? Does that mean her hair style? Her clothing style? If so, sad, isn’t it?
can they say that Rowley needs a trip to Queer Eye for the Straight Guy?
Ohhhh … that’s practically Darcy’s favorite show … Deadwood gets first place ALWAYS.
Those guys are just darling .. she needs a little something. It can be very subtle. (Hate to say that, but it is true.)
P.S. NEWSHOUNDS has a good rundown on the video — but it’s best just to watch it for yourselves! O’Reilly is such a fucking bastard.
P.P.S. Cross-posted at DKos.
Yup. Nice to know that grasp of the issues and ideas and what the paper focuses on…
Agreed but most of us look a teensy bit better with a nice hair cut and a smidgen of makeup.
Even my Darcy has begun wearing the tiniest bit of eyeliner, amazing since she always hated makeup. And it goes make her eyes look a bit more dramatic even though you can’t tell she is wearing makeup.
And I’d recommend just a smidgen for her since TV is particularly hard on how people look … which is why every man on TV wears makeup too.
I know I could use some tips myself!
She will probably get some ‘handlers’ who will deal with all of that once she really starts campaigning..
I’m just sad that we wont vote for anyone unless they look Fawbulus… you know? It’s more like a pageant and i think it’s telling that they feel that they have to critique her “style.” She doesn’t look badly turned out.. just dated. That’s ok with me.
Sorry to get on my high horse.. i think this is just one of those things that set me off as an AIS woman. I look like any other woman except that I’m a lot hairier.. so unless I spend thousands on thousands of dollars I’ll never exactly be stylish myself. I know that if I ever ran for election i would probably get hair jokes.. i mean im probably the only woman that could braid her chest hair.. hehe
Anyway ^_^ i’m not that serious on this but when the superficiality of pop culture is very much apet peeve here!
they elected Katherine Harris, so anything is possible.
Btw-
LOL ..Point
I agree with you. But you know that as soon as she gets a makeover, or a new haircut they’ll be all over her for that, making fun of her new look.
Women not only have to be competent and accomplished, they have to look good as well. And by “good” I mean by accepted societal standards.
They will be, with snarky before and after … unless she does it very subtly, and very gradually.
She was very pale on ‘Reilly last night. If she added a tiny bit of eyeliner to bring out her eyes, and some rouge, she’d look sharper and most people couldn’t pinpoint what she’d done.
You know what the weird part is for me? A lot of those polished-looking people give me the major creeps… like that George Allen, the GOP U.S. Senator from Virginia .. oh gawd.
They look so fake. Like Ken in the Barbie set.
those super polished men all remind me of preachers…all made up with nary a hair out of place.
is infuriating. The amount of misinformation and straight out lying is mind-boggling.
I also ‘enjoyed’ his statement about Clinton being callous when he “allowed” 3000 people to die on 9/11. Apparently he is so unacquainted with reality that he doesn’t realize that Bush was President at that point…
Mr. O’Reilly if that remark was a Freudian slip or an intentional slander?
is that it was intentional slander, and the reason I think that is because of the context of the interview (with a woman who blew the whistle on FBI intel), and current events (the whole Curt Weldon deal).
I wouldn’t be surprised if this kind of thing starts happening more and more, especially if more evidence comes out that 9/11 could/should have been prevented.
But I could be wrong, and I don’t plan on watching O’Reilly to see if he changes his tune 🙂
O’Reilly “advised” Coleen Rowley not to associate with “radical groups” that have associated with Cindy Sheehan, because people will use that association to demonize her.
Perhaps Rowley should have taken the opportunity to note that it’d be O’Reilly and his ilk who’d be doing the demonizing, that guilt by association is is a poor substitute for intelligent discussion, and that his association with radical elements of society didn’t seem to have hurt him … though perhaps the fact that some of the radicals that he associates with are part of the Administration makes a difference.
Wait, are vibrators and falafels radical elements?
wouldn’t be a good thing if I were in bill’s show. I would call him names and other things. I can not for the life of me why others can’t do this. He is such a jerk..and I would say so. I know ,,,I, I , I..I am not them..but why do they sit and take that feces from/off of him. I do not watch him or Fox at all..I tried to see if Clark was on that station at any point to see what he might say and I simply could not do this at all!!!!!!!
why do we as a civilized section of the land of which we love so dearly allow ourselves to be place in that position, I will never understand.
I have programmed my TV so it won’t even land on Fox, and here I am forced (ok I was curious) to watch the very thing that I was trying to avoid. This despicable, bloated, self-aggrandizing man telling Ms. Rowley that he’s just “looking out for you, Miss Rowley” is so much paternalistic bullshit.
Why the hell do normal people agree to appear on Fox? He never lets them speak.
Yes, very patronizing.
Also a bit fearful … like he knows he doesn’t dare smear her because she’s the REAL DEAL.
I am perpetually ticked off when these REACTIONARIES name call about their apparent perception of the radical left.
To claim these are mere neocons and not fascists, or Francoist Falangists at the very least is misleading to the point of deceit. They’re not fascists because they’re not out Holocausting? Hold on, buddy.
How many Jews did Hitler kill in his first five years? Virtually none, if any. How many Moslems has Bush killed in his first five years? Since the Pentagon doesn’t do body counts in this military catastrophe, all we get is “estimates”.
Hundreds of thousands? Millions? Certainly BOR and Bush and Rumsfeld and Rove and Wolfowitz and Feith and Rice give not the slightest indication of caring. The Nazis anally kept meticulous count of their exterminations. Bush and company don’t seem to know.
So perhaps, my characterizations are too harsh.
More properly Bush and Co. should be called more correctly, “Sloppy Fascists” or careless Nazis.
And Bush and Co. have invaded as many countries as Hitler, with steel sheathed claws of naked Imperial aggression in the same time in office.
Prisoners dying in American concentration camps without right of trial or even an attorney? Don’t get me started.
Bill O’Reilly, afraid of being left of an ice cream Sunday? If that isn’t evil, what is?
I gotta go.