You see I take it as established fact that they are. The evidence is just so overwhelming. It goes without saying that she's hated on Fox News, but try watching MSNBC one night. Whether Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell, Chris Mathews, Eric Dyson, Al Sharpton she is treated with such coldness.
It isn't just what's said-and what's said is never positive. I'd pay you to show me a positive comment between 5 and 11 in the evenings of HRC by either the host or any guests. I mean listen to Lawrence O'Donnell:
"Lawrence O’Donnell, who has been MSNBC’sharshest critic of Hillary Clinton over these last several days as the controversy surrounding her use of a personal email address and server has come to a head, responded to her press conference in a segment with Alex WagnerTuesday afternoon."
"Addressing Clinton’s explanation that she used one email address — and therefore one phone — as a matter of “convenience,” O’Donnell argued that for him it is more “convenient” to use two phones in order to keep his personal and professional lives separate. The anchor did not acknowledge that most smart phone can now accommodate two separate email addresses for exactly that purpose."
“But convenience is not a choice you have in government,” O’Donnell said, referring to a 2009 regulation that applied to her and not predecessors like Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. “That regulation said that her email must be preserved in the State Department recordkeeping system and it wasn’t,” he added. “There’s a moment in there where she says ‘everything I did was according to the law and the regulations.’ It was not in compliance with that regulation.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-odonnell-to-hillary-clinton-you-dont-get-to-choose-whats-convenient/
Who needs Rush Limbaugh with Lawrence O'Donnell around. So what are you saying Lawrence you'd rather have Jeb Bush? By the way, it's not at all clear what this regulation he sites really means. It wasn't a law it was kind of a developing 'suggestion.' There is real ambiguity.
"Of course, as the State Department and Clinton have argued, she was in compliance with that regulation because her government-related emails were archived and can still be accessed. But since it will be difficult, if not impossible, to assess whether any work-related messages were deleted, that point is in contention."
Ironically, this is the one area the Right seems to prefer the government to the private sector though we've since learned that there are actually problems with the government email system and that more of Hillary's emails are available thanks to her private email system than otherwise would have been.
It isn't just what's said-and what's said is never positive. I'd pay you to show me a positive comment between 5 and 11 in the evenings of HRC by either the host or any guests. I mean listen to Lawrence O'Donnell:
"Lawrence O’Donnell, who has been MSNBC’sharshest critic of Hillary Clinton over these last several days as the controversy surrounding her use of a personal email address and server has come to a head, responded to her press conference in a segment with Alex WagnerTuesday afternoon."
"Addressing Clinton’s explanation that she used one email address — and therefore one phone — as a matter of “convenience,” O’Donnell argued that for him it is more “convenient” to use two phones in order to keep his personal and professional lives separate. The anchor did not acknowledge that most smart phone can now accommodate two separate email addresses for exactly that purpose."
“But convenience is not a choice you have in government,” O’Donnell said, referring to a 2009 regulation that applied to her and not predecessors like Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. “That regulation said that her email must be preserved in the State Department recordkeeping system and it wasn’t,” he added. “There’s a moment in there where she says ‘everything I did was according to the law and the regulations.’ It was not in compliance with that regulation.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-odonnell-to-hillary-clinton-you-dont-get-to-choose-whats-convenient/
Who needs Rush Limbaugh with Lawrence O'Donnell around. So what are you saying Lawrence you'd rather have Jeb Bush? By the way, it's not at all clear what this regulation he sites really means. It wasn't a law it was kind of a developing 'suggestion.' There is real ambiguity.
"Of course, as the State Department and Clinton have argued, she was in compliance with that regulation because her government-related emails were archived and can still be accessed. But since it will be difficult, if not impossible, to assess whether any work-related messages were deleted, that point is in contention."
Ironically, this is the one area the Right seems to prefer the government to the private sector though we've since learned that there are actually problems with the government email system and that more of Hillary's emails are available thanks to her private email system than otherwise would have been.
But when the subject is Hillary-bashing what do facts matter?
So it's ok that Powell and Rice uses private email but not Hillary and for that reason he'd rather have the Bushes back in the White House again? That is what his pious diatribe implies.
But even those who don't go all Rush Limbaugh on her like O'Donnell still say nothing positive while raving over Bernie.
On Monday after the market tanked Politico gloats 'As the Stock Market Drops so do Hillary's Chances'
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/stock-market-hillary-clinton-121740.html?hp=r2_4
But this is the whole narrative. The Democrats should be glad that for once we don't have to have a bruising primary. Instead they seem determined to help out the GOP. Now we hear that the GOP is loving the Biden baloney after suffering through Trump.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/gop-revels-in-joe-biden-buzz-121743.html?hp=t3_r
Well, why are the Democrats squirming? If they are it's self-inflicted. There is absolutely no reason for the Biden candidacy. While there is this tired narrative that Hillary is not liberal enough-though it's not true-but she's surely not to the Right of Biden.
To be sure, whatever squirming going on with Biden is peanuts compared with Trump who is just swamping the entire field. It's not even believable how bad it is. Not just in poll after poll but on issue after issue. He has 44% on the economy and Jeb is at 9%. So the GOP has little to laugh about.
Michael Tomaksy is right that a Biden candidacy would get nasty as it's not necessary. Now they're saying that Joe has 'integrity'-ie, Hillary doesn't. So the basic narrative of his campaign would be emailgate. So he would literally be the Rush Limbaugh candidate.
"When Clinton announced in 2007, she was going to be the first woman president. Then Obama got in, and he was going to be the first black president. He totally trumped her on the history-maker scale. I realize not everyone saw it that way, but in general terms, given the, ah, special racial history of this country, and given the role the Democratic Party played in changing that history for the better, Obama had the larger and more morally urgent historical claim to make in the minds of most Democrats and liberals. The woman would have to wait, as women so often do."
"Well, she’s waited. Not that she had any choice in the matter, but she did. And now, to a lot of Democrats, it’s her turn. The party can make history twice in a row. Imagine!"
So it's ok that Powell and Rice uses private email but not Hillary and for that reason he'd rather have the Bushes back in the White House again? That is what his pious diatribe implies.
But even those who don't go all Rush Limbaugh on her like O'Donnell still say nothing positive while raving over Bernie.
On Monday after the market tanked Politico gloats 'As the Stock Market Drops so do Hillary's Chances'
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/stock-market-hillary-clinton-121740.html?hp=r2_4
But this is the whole narrative. The Democrats should be glad that for once we don't have to have a bruising primary. Instead they seem determined to help out the GOP. Now we hear that the GOP is loving the Biden baloney after suffering through Trump.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/gop-revels-in-joe-biden-buzz-121743.html?hp=t3_r
Well, why are the Democrats squirming? If they are it's self-inflicted. There is absolutely no reason for the Biden candidacy. While there is this tired narrative that Hillary is not liberal enough-though it's not true-but she's surely not to the Right of Biden.
To be sure, whatever squirming going on with Biden is peanuts compared with Trump who is just swamping the entire field. It's not even believable how bad it is. Not just in poll after poll but on issue after issue. He has 44% on the economy and Jeb is at 9%. So the GOP has little to laugh about.
Michael Tomaksy is right that a Biden candidacy would get nasty as it's not necessary. Now they're saying that Joe has 'integrity'-ie, Hillary doesn't. So the basic narrative of his campaign would be emailgate. So he would literally be the Rush Limbaugh candidate.
"When Clinton announced in 2007, she was going to be the first woman president. Then Obama got in, and he was going to be the first black president. He totally trumped her on the history-maker scale. I realize not everyone saw it that way, but in general terms, given the, ah, special racial history of this country, and given the role the Democratic Party played in changing that history for the better, Obama had the larger and more morally urgent historical claim to make in the minds of most Democrats and liberals. The woman would have to wait, as women so often do."
"Well, she’s waited. Not that she had any choice in the matter, but she did. And now, to a lot of Democrats, it’s her turn. The party can make history twice in a row. Imagine!"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/25/hillary-vs-biden-would-get-ugly-fast.html
By the way I do think a lot of the contempt Hillary is treated with is based on her gender. Yes, the Left worships Saint Elizabeth Warren but that's because she' s a saint. She's what a nun would do if she ever for some reason descended to politics.
Tomasky is dead right and the question I have is why don't liberals want to admit that yet? I guess they are afraid of this being a coronation. To me this worry is misplaced. It gives us some advantages.
To me I don't even waste time thinking about the Democrats right now but just pass the popcorn and watch Trump and the Sixteen Dwarfs.
"No. He’s going to have to run a campaign that says, sub rosa: “I’m a stronger and safer nominee because she’s corrupt.” Because that’s the only argument, is it not? He can’t out-populist her, really, even with Warren promoting him—he’s been in politics for 40 years and he’s always been a pretty conventional establishment liberal on economics. He can maybe say he has more experience, but she’s got plenty of that, and it’s not a deficiency; it would be like Tim Duncan saying “I have more experience than LeBron James.” Yeah, you do. So what?"
Yes, in other words going a full Lawrence O'Donnell-Rush Limbaugh. By the way Warren was not promoting him and I'm pretty sure is agnostic on him getting in the race. If he does she won't endorse him as she won't endorse anybody.
No real surprise-the Warren supporters like Bernie.
So why is the media so anti-Hillary? A few things.
1. They have always been anti-Hillary going back to the early 90s in the Beltway press
2. But they also see it their duty to be her primary opponent as she is basically unopposed-Bernie is nowhere. Yes he gets big crowds but the goal is not to get the biggest crowds but the most votes.
He's leading in NH which is hardly shocking-he could even win it as it's next door to Vermont. There area few more places with lots of white liberals he may win.
Of course, to hear the media frame this you'd think he's in the lead. In Iowa he's back down to trailing by 34% but of course, this isn't news worthy of being trumpeted.
The media is kind of offended that she's sort of being coronated-though what's the big deal in that? Incumbent Presidents are usually unopposed and the sky doesn't fall.
3. But I think part of 1 is that she's a woman. I maintain that many don't like her as she's clearly also self-seeking and ambitious. I have no problem with her ambition as I don't see that as pejorative but a lot of people-including in my experience a lot of progressive women-do have such a problem.
Really if you are in politics you have to be pretty ambitious-as well as principled. Many people seem to see the two traits as mutually exclusive but the two to the contrary reinforce each other in a successful politician. If you don't have any ego then this game is not for you.
Mother Warren cares nothing for her self. She's pure, selfless, and is here to fulminate against all things bankers and protect her children from the curs. She's a fire and brimstone sermon from Heaven.
Hillary is principled and idealistic-both her and her husband going back to the 60s care deeply about social progress and helping people; it would be nice if anyone remembered that the Clinton Global Initiative actually helps lots of very poor people across the globe-but when you look at Hillary you don't see pure egoless selflessness. Hillary clearly also is self-seeking and ambitious. Ie, she's a politician not a saint. A lot of people still can't accept women as politicians.
To win Biden is going to have to go Rush Limbaugh-or Lawrence O'Donnell-and build his campaign around emails. What other basis if there for the claim that she's not trustworthy than emailgate?
"So now, an old white guy is going to saunter in and step on that? And if he’s going to do it, he’s not going to be able to do it politely, which brings us to reason number two why this would get ugly. Biden is not going to get anywhere with a campaign that says: “I have better ideas than Hillary Clinton does,” because he probably doesn’t, and she has perfectly fine and laudable ideas, even if a lot of liberals don’t want to admit that yet."Tomasky is dead right and the question I have is why don't liberals want to admit that yet? I guess they are afraid of this being a coronation. To me this worry is misplaced. It gives us some advantages.
To me I don't even waste time thinking about the Democrats right now but just pass the popcorn and watch Trump and the Sixteen Dwarfs.
"No. He’s going to have to run a campaign that says, sub rosa: “I’m a stronger and safer nominee because she’s corrupt.” Because that’s the only argument, is it not? He can’t out-populist her, really, even with Warren promoting him—he’s been in politics for 40 years and he’s always been a pretty conventional establishment liberal on economics. He can maybe say he has more experience, but she’s got plenty of that, and it’s not a deficiency; it would be like Tim Duncan saying “I have more experience than LeBron James.” Yeah, you do. So what?"
Yes, in other words going a full Lawrence O'Donnell-Rush Limbaugh. By the way Warren was not promoting him and I'm pretty sure is agnostic on him getting in the race. If he does she won't endorse him as she won't endorse anybody.
No real surprise-the Warren supporters like Bernie.
So why is the media so anti-Hillary? A few things.
1. They have always been anti-Hillary going back to the early 90s in the Beltway press
2. But they also see it their duty to be her primary opponent as she is basically unopposed-Bernie is nowhere. Yes he gets big crowds but the goal is not to get the biggest crowds but the most votes.
He's leading in NH which is hardly shocking-he could even win it as it's next door to Vermont. There area few more places with lots of white liberals he may win.
Of course, to hear the media frame this you'd think he's in the lead. In Iowa he's back down to trailing by 34% but of course, this isn't news worthy of being trumpeted.
The media is kind of offended that she's sort of being coronated-though what's the big deal in that? Incumbent Presidents are usually unopposed and the sky doesn't fall.
3. But I think part of 1 is that she's a woman. I maintain that many don't like her as she's clearly also self-seeking and ambitious. I have no problem with her ambition as I don't see that as pejorative but a lot of people-including in my experience a lot of progressive women-do have such a problem.
Really if you are in politics you have to be pretty ambitious-as well as principled. Many people seem to see the two traits as mutually exclusive but the two to the contrary reinforce each other in a successful politician. If you don't have any ego then this game is not for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment