The response to David Brock' s new book from the small number in the media that even discuss it at all is to act as if it can't be true as conspiracies don't happen. It must be nice to live in such an innocent world.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/you-go-david-brock-his-new-book-calls.html
Chris Hayes of MSNBC interviewed Brock the other night but he seemed to be very skeptical that her brutal coverage could be a conspiracy.
Well let's put it this way. Do you think there is a conspiracy on the part of Fox News to destroy Hillary? Do you believe there was one in the 90s to destroy her husband?
If you don't then there's not much more we can say to each other as you live in some parallel universe somewhere were oil and water mix, pigs fly, and birds don't or something.
If you concede this though whey couldn't the Times be out to get one candidate? We've heard plenty about the Clinton rules.
"If you are old enough to remember the 1990s, you remember the endless parade of alleged scandals, Whitewater above all — all of them fomented by right-wing operatives, all eagerly hyped by mainstream news outlets, none of which actually turned out to involve wrongdoing. The usual rules didn’t seem to apply; instead it was Clinton rules, under which innuendo and guilt by association were considered perfectly OK, in which the initial suggestion of lawbreaking received front-page headlines and the subsequent discovery that there was nothing there was buried in the back pages if it was reported at all."
"Some of the same phenomenon resurfaced during the 2008 primary."
"So, is this time different? First indications are not encouraging; it’s already apparent that the author of the anti-Clinton book that’s driving the latest stuff is a real piece of work."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/clinton-rules/?_r=0
Krugman wrote this in April. As it was early even he said 'There could be something to this'-but that he doubted it.
"Again, maybe there’s something there. But given the history here, we’d all be well advised to follow our own Clinton rules, and be highly suspicious of any reports of supposed scandals unless there’s hard proof rather than mere innuendo."
"Oh, and the news media should probably be aware that this isn’t 1994: there’s a much more effective progressive infrastructure now, much more scrutiny of reporting, and the kinds of malpractice that went unsanctioned 20 years ago can land you in big trouble now"
"See, in my view, we liberals should play our own Clinton Rules which means that the burden of proof for those who claim new Clinton scandals should be on them and not the Clintons. Come to think of it this isn't so much Clinton Rules as simply our Constitution which states someone is innocent until proven guilty."
"For the media, when it's the Clintons the Constitution is thrown out: they begin by presuming that the allegations are true until the Clintons can prove otherwise-guilty until proven innocent."
"What's clear is that the media is determined to keep this email thing going by hook or by crook even when media folks admit that there isn't necessarily much there, they still continue to fan the flames."
Last night Chris Matthews on allegedly liberal MSNBC did the honors. Mathews unlike Lawrence O'Donnell's moral preening that Hillary has done something deeply immoral-but what exactly?-that the email scandal is basically a Rorschach test that you project any thing you want-any anti Hillary message: Yes, she did nothing illegal but still it just points to her love of secrecy, the way that she and her husband don''t play by the rules of the rest of us; you know the Clintons just cut corners and how can the American people trust them
But then Mathews and his guests say that for some reason the media has it in for the Clinton's Who knows why? Maybe this is the fault of the media or maybe of the Clintons, or maybe both, but maybe voters will just decide they need a new candidate.
Then Mathews hit Hillary with endless gushing Biden talk even though that Biden-Colbert interview certainly suggested to me that he isn't going to run.
But the media can't say that! This would be lightening their foot on her neck so who cares what the truth is? Mathews declared that Biden doens't have to make a choice now or in the next couple of weeks.
He can just keep straddling the fence for as long as he likes. Of course, that works out goof for the Hillary haters in the press for they can do their usual drip, drip, drip of razzing her about Biden even though he probably never will run.
And by doing this maybe it knocks her poll numbers down further.
Rachel Maddow also did some Hillary bashing on her show. Every host on the allegedly liberal MSNBC does some Hillary bashing but in slightly different ways.
Rachel like Mathews doesn't do a Lawrence O'Donnell and just go full Fox News and piously inveigh against Hillary's evil treachery on the emails.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/30/lawrence_odonnell_on_clinton_emails_if_you_care_at_all_about_the_freedom_of_information_act.html
O'Donnell evidently has no pause at who it is that has been making all these FOIA requests: namely, Citizen's United. So those who hate the Citizen's United verdict and yet piously intone that Hillary is accused of breaking FOIA should remember who is making this accusation.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/09/judge-denies-stays-in-2-clinton-related-email-cases-213570
No Rachel's game is to give us New, breaking news! The White House has announced late tonight that Biden will be giving a speech the day after the GOP debate.
Aha! He must be running then? I mean you have to always assume the worst thing that can happen to Hillary will so we have to assume Biden is very likely to run-though he sounds like a man way too introspective after the tragedy of losing his son for such a move.
We will see what Joe says, but I wouldn't be at all shocked if he uses this talk next week to pull the plug once and for all on the speculation. Just my guess. But I do know is despite how hard the Beltway press is trying to drive a wedge between Hillary and Obama, she is is choice to cement his legacy, that has been clear since very early in his second term.
My guess is maybe the Obama Administration has gently nudged Joe to take this shiny object out of the media's hand once and for all.
Finally, Chris Hayes at least mentioned the fact that the DOJ confirms Hillary did nothing wrong. Not even in her 'scrubbing' of the server.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/if-truth-matters-obama-white-house.html
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/09/11/doj-debunks-media-speculation-that-hillary-clin/205497
So Hayes rightly reported this and duly noted that this has not been discussed anywhere. Certainly not the NY Times-which has been a conduit for anti Hillary scandals for 24 years-and not on tx cable channels not even on MSNBC save for Hayes.
But then he too was unwilling to take his foot of her neck either by saying blandly Well, that clears up this part of it though we still don't yet know whether or not she has classified emails.
See how even he gives with one hand and takes back with the other? What he doesn't explain is why-if she's guilty of nothing-are we cherrypicking every email in her entire life for clues of something?
If she did nothing wrong then where is the probable cause? Why are we poking into her emails rather than Jeb Bush's or Colin Powell's, Scott Walker's, or Susan Rice's? Well just because the media haters Hillary.
P.S. If you look at the role of the Times in fomenting Clinton scandals for 24 years it's been a very important conduit. These scandals always start on the Right but once the Times runs with it then it becomes something that the entire Beltway press assumes is worthy of going Gonzo over.
And if not for the Times in the 90s, Ken Starr would have gone back to teaching and the Lewinsky issue with Clinton's impeachment would never have happened. But William Safire of the Times was able to convince him not to.
And yes, while it's true as ha s been pointed out that the Times endorsed Hillary in 2008 it also
called for her husband to resign in the late 90s over Lewinsky. Look we can argue the why of the conspiracy.
For the Right the motivation is obvious. For the Times which has a reputation of being liberal, there might be a couple of different motivations that have conspired together. In the 90s a large part of it was Safire's close relationship with Times owner Arthur Sulzberger. Now we now that Carolyn Ryan is a very big Hillary hater who says that 'The Clinton's just lie so we can't listen to their side.'
The Times like the rest of the Beltway press maybe just wants vindication as for years they failed to lay a glove on the Clintons.
In any case, Ms. Ryan can't claim that she's been 'tough on Hillary'-as the Times hasn't discussed her issues too much. It's been scandal mongering which isn't 'being tough' it's playing high school games.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/you-go-david-brock-his-new-book-calls.html
Chris Hayes of MSNBC interviewed Brock the other night but he seemed to be very skeptical that her brutal coverage could be a conspiracy.
Well let's put it this way. Do you think there is a conspiracy on the part of Fox News to destroy Hillary? Do you believe there was one in the 90s to destroy her husband?
If you don't then there's not much more we can say to each other as you live in some parallel universe somewhere were oil and water mix, pigs fly, and birds don't or something.
If you concede this though whey couldn't the Times be out to get one candidate? We've heard plenty about the Clinton rules.
"If you are old enough to remember the 1990s, you remember the endless parade of alleged scandals, Whitewater above all — all of them fomented by right-wing operatives, all eagerly hyped by mainstream news outlets, none of which actually turned out to involve wrongdoing. The usual rules didn’t seem to apply; instead it was Clinton rules, under which innuendo and guilt by association were considered perfectly OK, in which the initial suggestion of lawbreaking received front-page headlines and the subsequent discovery that there was nothing there was buried in the back pages if it was reported at all."
"Some of the same phenomenon resurfaced during the 2008 primary."
"So, is this time different? First indications are not encouraging; it’s already apparent that the author of the anti-Clinton book that’s driving the latest stuff is a real piece of work."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/clinton-rules/?_r=0
Krugman wrote this in April. As it was early even he said 'There could be something to this'-but that he doubted it.
"Again, maybe there’s something there. But given the history here, we’d all be well advised to follow our own Clinton rules, and be highly suspicious of any reports of supposed scandals unless there’s hard proof rather than mere innuendo."
"Oh, and the news media should probably be aware that this isn’t 1994: there’s a much more effective progressive infrastructure now, much more scrutiny of reporting, and the kinds of malpractice that went unsanctioned 20 years ago can land you in big trouble now"
"See, in my view, we liberals should play our own Clinton Rules which means that the burden of proof for those who claim new Clinton scandals should be on them and not the Clintons. Come to think of it this isn't so much Clinton Rules as simply our Constitution which states someone is innocent until proven guilty."
"For the media, when it's the Clintons the Constitution is thrown out: they begin by presuming that the allegations are true until the Clintons can prove otherwise-guilty until proven innocent."
"What's clear is that the media is determined to keep this email thing going by hook or by crook even when media folks admit that there isn't necessarily much there, they still continue to fan the flames."
Last night Chris Matthews on allegedly liberal MSNBC did the honors. Mathews unlike Lawrence O'Donnell's moral preening that Hillary has done something deeply immoral-but what exactly?-that the email scandal is basically a Rorschach test that you project any thing you want-any anti Hillary message: Yes, she did nothing illegal but still it just points to her love of secrecy, the way that she and her husband don''t play by the rules of the rest of us; you know the Clintons just cut corners and how can the American people trust them
But then Mathews and his guests say that for some reason the media has it in for the Clinton's Who knows why? Maybe this is the fault of the media or maybe of the Clintons, or maybe both, but maybe voters will just decide they need a new candidate.
Then Mathews hit Hillary with endless gushing Biden talk even though that Biden-Colbert interview certainly suggested to me that he isn't going to run.
But the media can't say that! This would be lightening their foot on her neck so who cares what the truth is? Mathews declared that Biden doens't have to make a choice now or in the next couple of weeks.
He can just keep straddling the fence for as long as he likes. Of course, that works out goof for the Hillary haters in the press for they can do their usual drip, drip, drip of razzing her about Biden even though he probably never will run.
And by doing this maybe it knocks her poll numbers down further.
Rachel Maddow also did some Hillary bashing on her show. Every host on the allegedly liberal MSNBC does some Hillary bashing but in slightly different ways.
Rachel like Mathews doesn't do a Lawrence O'Donnell and just go full Fox News and piously inveigh against Hillary's evil treachery on the emails.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/30/lawrence_odonnell_on_clinton_emails_if_you_care_at_all_about_the_freedom_of_information_act.html
O'Donnell evidently has no pause at who it is that has been making all these FOIA requests: namely, Citizen's United. So those who hate the Citizen's United verdict and yet piously intone that Hillary is accused of breaking FOIA should remember who is making this accusation.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/09/judge-denies-stays-in-2-clinton-related-email-cases-213570
No Rachel's game is to give us New, breaking news! The White House has announced late tonight that Biden will be giving a speech the day after the GOP debate.
Aha! He must be running then? I mean you have to always assume the worst thing that can happen to Hillary will so we have to assume Biden is very likely to run-though he sounds like a man way too introspective after the tragedy of losing his son for such a move.
We will see what Joe says, but I wouldn't be at all shocked if he uses this talk next week to pull the plug once and for all on the speculation. Just my guess. But I do know is despite how hard the Beltway press is trying to drive a wedge between Hillary and Obama, she is is choice to cement his legacy, that has been clear since very early in his second term.
My guess is maybe the Obama Administration has gently nudged Joe to take this shiny object out of the media's hand once and for all.
Finally, Chris Hayes at least mentioned the fact that the DOJ confirms Hillary did nothing wrong. Not even in her 'scrubbing' of the server.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/09/if-truth-matters-obama-white-house.html
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/09/11/doj-debunks-media-speculation-that-hillary-clin/205497
So Hayes rightly reported this and duly noted that this has not been discussed anywhere. Certainly not the NY Times-which has been a conduit for anti Hillary scandals for 24 years-and not on tx cable channels not even on MSNBC save for Hayes.
But then he too was unwilling to take his foot of her neck either by saying blandly Well, that clears up this part of it though we still don't yet know whether or not she has classified emails.
See how even he gives with one hand and takes back with the other? What he doesn't explain is why-if she's guilty of nothing-are we cherrypicking every email in her entire life for clues of something?
If she did nothing wrong then where is the probable cause? Why are we poking into her emails rather than Jeb Bush's or Colin Powell's, Scott Walker's, or Susan Rice's? Well just because the media haters Hillary.
P.S. If you look at the role of the Times in fomenting Clinton scandals for 24 years it's been a very important conduit. These scandals always start on the Right but once the Times runs with it then it becomes something that the entire Beltway press assumes is worthy of going Gonzo over.
And if not for the Times in the 90s, Ken Starr would have gone back to teaching and the Lewinsky issue with Clinton's impeachment would never have happened. But William Safire of the Times was able to convince him not to.
And yes, while it's true as ha s been pointed out that the Times endorsed Hillary in 2008 it also
called for her husband to resign in the late 90s over Lewinsky. Look we can argue the why of the conspiracy.
For the Right the motivation is obvious. For the Times which has a reputation of being liberal, there might be a couple of different motivations that have conspired together. In the 90s a large part of it was Safire's close relationship with Times owner Arthur Sulzberger. Now we now that Carolyn Ryan is a very big Hillary hater who says that 'The Clinton's just lie so we can't listen to their side.'
The Times like the rest of the Beltway press maybe just wants vindication as for years they failed to lay a glove on the Clintons.
In any case, Ms. Ryan can't claim that she's been 'tough on Hillary'-as the Times hasn't discussed her issues too much. It's been scandal mongering which isn't 'being tough' it's playing high school games.
No comments:
Post a Comment