I wrote last week about her 2008 race against Obama and how they will both get to be President after all.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/03/looks-like-both-obama-and-hillary-will.html
In the piece, I admitted that Obama was not my first choice in 2008 but I came to really love and respect him as President. However, I never felt I loved the man more than when he recently went out on a limb for Hillary. He even went as far as saying that he felt that she was unfairly the victim of sexism in 2008.
That's pretty big of him to say this. One thing that had frustrated me about 2008 was how much more sensitivity about directing racism towards Obama than sexism towards Hillary. There was this sense that 'Of course a black man faces more discrimination than a white woman'-which I felt was belied by the coverage.
One reason why the 60s civil rights activist Shirley Chisholm remained a Hillary supporter after most other black leaders had switched to Obama-some of them were sort of pushed by voters who threatened them with primaries if they didn't-was her belief that when she was in Congress she faced more discrimination as a woman than as a black person.
http://gos.sbc.edu/c/chisholm.html
But I really appreciated Obama saying that in some ways he was helped by sexism directed towards Hillary in terms of news coverage. After all, he was her 2008 opponent and you can't blame him for running a vigorous campaign and playing to win. But for him to be able to say this, shows some real charitableness and empathy on his party.
Now former NY Times editor Jill Abramson in retrospect admits that the Times has often been like a prosecutor in the way they cover Hillary's campaign.
"A couple of years back, a friend of Hillary Clinton’s told me the candidate-to-be was “disappointed” that the first woman to edit the New York Times — veteran investigative reporter Jill Abramson — wasn’t more sympathetic to her plight as a feminist pioneer in politics."
"In fact, both the candidate and her more volatile spouse went a lot further, venting to people around them that they saw the country’s most powerful paper as a kind of special prosecutor in a blue plastic bag, whose top editors were bent on scouring them with an alacrity not directed at other politicians (“They are out to get us,” the former president told a friend more recently)."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/jill-abramson-hillary-clinton-2016-221017#ixzz43XQ9OIuS
Remember that the Times conspired to work with the author of Clinton Cash, a very unusual relationship.
“She does get more scrutiny” than other candidates – especially male candidates, Abramson told me during a 50-minute interview for POLITICO’s “Off Message” podcast last week. When I asked her if Clinton’s arch-defender David Brock had a point when he lashed the Times for giving the Clintons an unfair “level of scrutiny,” she interrupted – to agree.
“Yeah, I do,” said Abramson – who was ousted in 2014 after reportedly complaining that her compensation package was inferior to that of her male predecessor, Bill Keller.
“[W]e, for some reason, expect total purity from a woman candidate,” added Abramson, who rose to the top job in 2011. “I did not feel, during my regime, that we were giving her way more scrutiny than anyone else.” But, she said, “Where I think Hillary Clinton faces, you know, certainly more of a burden is that the controversies she’s been in are immediately labeled, you know, Travel-gate or Email-gate… if you actually asked people what about any of these controversies bothers them, they don’t know anything specific about any of them.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/jill-abramson-hillary-clinton-2016-221017#ixzz43XQrkjFD
Don't get me started on Emailgate. I've noticed even political scientists including her chances of being indicted by the FBI as factors in whether she wins the Democratic nomination.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/
"And Abramson isn’t overly impressed by the one Clinton storyline getting the most attention: the lingering probe into the former secretary of state’s “homebrew” email server during her Foggy Bottom tenure. Like Whitewater, the scandal was uncovered by a New York Times reporter; like Whitewater, it is regarded as a deus ex machina by Republicans facing political gloom; and like Whitewater, it will likely turn out to be more froth than flood, in Abramson’s view. “I won’t say nothing – but very little,” she said, referring to the sum significance of Clinton's scandals.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/jill-abramson-hillary-clinton-2016-221017#ixzz43XSTSU3S
Pundits continue to say she's under investigation from the FBI though this is totally false. They also fail to note that using private email is a very common occurrence for high ranking government officials-Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice both used it.
Now that Powell and Rice have had to hand over their own emails, you hear nothing about either of them being 'investigated by the FBI.'
"It depends on, you know, what your definition of “big deal” is, but I’m not going to play Bill Clinton for you here,” she said, referring to the former president’s infamous what-is-is monologue during his Monica Lewinsky deposition. “The issue, to me, that’s at the crux is that everything that we know that was classified was classified after the fact, after the emails were sent. And so, why is that a big deal? And the fact that she had this private email is something that, you know, I’ve read widely, a lot of people in the government – Colin Powell, let’s face it, got much bigger speaking fees than Hillary did.”
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/03/looks-like-both-obama-and-hillary-will.html
In the piece, I admitted that Obama was not my first choice in 2008 but I came to really love and respect him as President. However, I never felt I loved the man more than when he recently went out on a limb for Hillary. He even went as far as saying that he felt that she was unfairly the victim of sexism in 2008.
That's pretty big of him to say this. One thing that had frustrated me about 2008 was how much more sensitivity about directing racism towards Obama than sexism towards Hillary. There was this sense that 'Of course a black man faces more discrimination than a white woman'-which I felt was belied by the coverage.
One reason why the 60s civil rights activist Shirley Chisholm remained a Hillary supporter after most other black leaders had switched to Obama-some of them were sort of pushed by voters who threatened them with primaries if they didn't-was her belief that when she was in Congress she faced more discrimination as a woman than as a black person.
http://gos.sbc.edu/c/chisholm.html
But I really appreciated Obama saying that in some ways he was helped by sexism directed towards Hillary in terms of news coverage. After all, he was her 2008 opponent and you can't blame him for running a vigorous campaign and playing to win. But for him to be able to say this, shows some real charitableness and empathy on his party.
Now former NY Times editor Jill Abramson in retrospect admits that the Times has often been like a prosecutor in the way they cover Hillary's campaign.
"A couple of years back, a friend of Hillary Clinton’s told me the candidate-to-be was “disappointed” that the first woman to edit the New York Times — veteran investigative reporter Jill Abramson — wasn’t more sympathetic to her plight as a feminist pioneer in politics."
"In fact, both the candidate and her more volatile spouse went a lot further, venting to people around them that they saw the country’s most powerful paper as a kind of special prosecutor in a blue plastic bag, whose top editors were bent on scouring them with an alacrity not directed at other politicians (“They are out to get us,” the former president told a friend more recently)."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/jill-abramson-hillary-clinton-2016-221017#ixzz43XQ9OIuS
Remember that the Times conspired to work with the author of Clinton Cash, a very unusual relationship.
“She does get more scrutiny” than other candidates – especially male candidates, Abramson told me during a 50-minute interview for POLITICO’s “Off Message” podcast last week. When I asked her if Clinton’s arch-defender David Brock had a point when he lashed the Times for giving the Clintons an unfair “level of scrutiny,” she interrupted – to agree.
“Yeah, I do,” said Abramson – who was ousted in 2014 after reportedly complaining that her compensation package was inferior to that of her male predecessor, Bill Keller.
“[W]e, for some reason, expect total purity from a woman candidate,” added Abramson, who rose to the top job in 2011. “I did not feel, during my regime, that we were giving her way more scrutiny than anyone else.” But, she said, “Where I think Hillary Clinton faces, you know, certainly more of a burden is that the controversies she’s been in are immediately labeled, you know, Travel-gate or Email-gate… if you actually asked people what about any of these controversies bothers them, they don’t know anything specific about any of them.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/jill-abramson-hillary-clinton-2016-221017#ixzz43XQrkjFD
Don't get me started on Emailgate. I've noticed even political scientists including her chances of being indicted by the FBI as factors in whether she wins the Democratic nomination.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/
"And Abramson isn’t overly impressed by the one Clinton storyline getting the most attention: the lingering probe into the former secretary of state’s “homebrew” email server during her Foggy Bottom tenure. Like Whitewater, the scandal was uncovered by a New York Times reporter; like Whitewater, it is regarded as a deus ex machina by Republicans facing political gloom; and like Whitewater, it will likely turn out to be more froth than flood, in Abramson’s view. “I won’t say nothing – but very little,” she said, referring to the sum significance of Clinton's scandals.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/jill-abramson-hillary-clinton-2016-221017#ixzz43XSTSU3S
Pundits continue to say she's under investigation from the FBI though this is totally false. They also fail to note that using private email is a very common occurrence for high ranking government officials-Colin Powell and Condeleeza Rice both used it.
Now that Powell and Rice have had to hand over their own emails, you hear nothing about either of them being 'investigated by the FBI.'
"It depends on, you know, what your definition of “big deal” is, but I’m not going to play Bill Clinton for you here,” she said, referring to the former president’s infamous what-is-is monologue during his Monica Lewinsky deposition. “The issue, to me, that’s at the crux is that everything that we know that was classified was classified after the fact, after the emails were sent. And so, why is that a big deal? And the fact that she had this private email is something that, you know, I’ve read widely, a lot of people in the government – Colin Powell, let’s face it, got much bigger speaking fees than Hillary did.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/jill-abramson-hillary-clinton-2016-221017#ixzz43XTCnc91
Colin Powell got bigger speaking fees than she did too. Why isn't this being treated as a big deal?
Colin Powell got bigger speaking fees than she did too. Why isn't this being treated as a big deal?
No comments:
Post a Comment