The Beltway press has been abuzz over his tweet about Hillary's 9/11 answer to her Wall St. donations. The Beltway is determined to make a big deal out of this.
As I said in a previous post, I've never seen a moderator as selectively hostile as John Dickerson was to Hillary Saturday night.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/11/in-2016-primary-it-seems-only-hillary.html
He asked her 2nd and 3rd followups again and again but not of the other two candidates. He actually came to Bernie's aid when she pointed out how weak he is on gun control.
While the GOP is now not allowed to be asked tough questions at their debates as that's liberal bias-they can't be asked followups or given really tough personal questions-Dickerson seemed to only want to ask HRC tough questions-not Bernie who he even gave help to on gun control.
So only she is now allowed to be asked tough questions. What's more, Dickerson took the unusual step of making an issue of a tweet by Andy Grewal on Twitter who said HRC"s 9/11 answer made him incredulous.
The Dem crowd had actually cheered her response but Dickerson seemed determined to urge them to feel differently. Dickerson is going way beyond moderating to trying to shape the crowd reaction.
Dems from what I can see, had no problem with her answer. But you have pundits who feel the need to continue to flag it. Nate Silver went as far as saying that Dems have to see her answer as awful or they lose the right to criticize Republicans.
Amazing how far Krugman's Very Serious Beltway is trying to shape public reaction here. It isn't working and I don't see why it would. It's not a state secret that she had donations from Wall Street firms while a Senator in NY.
What Bernie wasn't able to do was show how this changed her votes. He wasn't able to criticize any votes she's taken on finance reform, etc. So this is just gotcha stuff. I don't buy this sort of donor determinism that all you have to look at is a candidates' donors and it's check please.
What's more folks like Andy Grewal are total phonies. What is his problem with what she said? Grewal is actually a member of the Federalist Society-not known for it's opposition to Citizen's United.
http://www.fed-soc.org/experts/detail/andy-grewal
In a Newsweek piece about him after he posted his tweet, he says he's a Rubio supporter-which is what I expected. So he's just part of another Right wing group trying to take down Hillary's poll numbers.
I mean does Rubio not take donations from banks? So clearly Grewal is not in principle opposed to such donations. So why the selective outrage?
http://www.newsweek.com/wall-street-clinton-answer-395151
Grewal has certainly been enjoying his post tweet fame. He has literally sent out 75 tweets over the last few days about that one comment by HRC.
When I tried to engage him on Twitter-no profanity no hate speech-of course he immediately blocked me.
As I said in a previous post, I've never seen a moderator as selectively hostile as John Dickerson was to Hillary Saturday night.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/11/in-2016-primary-it-seems-only-hillary.html
He asked her 2nd and 3rd followups again and again but not of the other two candidates. He actually came to Bernie's aid when she pointed out how weak he is on gun control.
While the GOP is now not allowed to be asked tough questions at their debates as that's liberal bias-they can't be asked followups or given really tough personal questions-Dickerson seemed to only want to ask HRC tough questions-not Bernie who he even gave help to on gun control.
So only she is now allowed to be asked tough questions. What's more, Dickerson took the unusual step of making an issue of a tweet by Andy Grewal on Twitter who said HRC"s 9/11 answer made him incredulous.
The Dem crowd had actually cheered her response but Dickerson seemed determined to urge them to feel differently. Dickerson is going way beyond moderating to trying to shape the crowd reaction.
Dems from what I can see, had no problem with her answer. But you have pundits who feel the need to continue to flag it. Nate Silver went as far as saying that Dems have to see her answer as awful or they lose the right to criticize Republicans.
Amazing how far Krugman's Very Serious Beltway is trying to shape public reaction here. It isn't working and I don't see why it would. It's not a state secret that she had donations from Wall Street firms while a Senator in NY.
What Bernie wasn't able to do was show how this changed her votes. He wasn't able to criticize any votes she's taken on finance reform, etc. So this is just gotcha stuff. I don't buy this sort of donor determinism that all you have to look at is a candidates' donors and it's check please.
What's more folks like Andy Grewal are total phonies. What is his problem with what she said? Grewal is actually a member of the Federalist Society-not known for it's opposition to Citizen's United.
http://www.fed-soc.org/experts/detail/andy-grewal
In a Newsweek piece about him after he posted his tweet, he says he's a Rubio supporter-which is what I expected. So he's just part of another Right wing group trying to take down Hillary's poll numbers.
I mean does Rubio not take donations from banks? So clearly Grewal is not in principle opposed to such donations. So why the selective outrage?
http://www.newsweek.com/wall-street-clinton-answer-395151
Grewal has certainly been enjoying his post tweet fame. He has literally sent out 75 tweets over the last few days about that one comment by HRC.
When I tried to engage him on Twitter-no profanity no hate speech-of course he immediately blocked me.
Obviously, a HRC supporter. The article is totally irrelevant because of your extreme liberal bias. It comes out in every snarky sentence you write - it's leaking out of your pores. If someone like Andy Grewal can't ask a simple question of a Presidential candidate without being berated by the likes of you, this just proves how messed up the liberal media is. Totally ridiculous. You'll stand behind a candidate even though she's a hair's breadth away from being indicted and question someone else political leanings? You should have your head checked. Liberalism is a mental disorder.
ReplyDeleteWell obviously you and Grewal have no bias.
ReplyDeleteHe is such a intellectually bankrupt he had to block me on Twitter.
He just comes across as a hypocrite-he supports Rubio yet he has a problem with HRC taking donations form banks?
That's just pure hypocrisy and concern trolling.
It's selective outrage. I called him on it.