This afternoon has been a treat. I got to actually converse-or at least get responses from-two big liberal heroes of mine.
First Eric Boehlert of Media Matters. I had sent this tweet in response to a tweet he sent-kind of how Twitter works.
Boehlert talked about how the Beltway media has always been hostile to the Clintons. It goes back to the 90s. Now the media feigns populism in their Clinton attacks. They're bad people because they've been successful politicians who have made some money for themselves.
Doing well while doing good? That's fine, as long as you're not the Clintons.
Amy Chozick of the NY Times has been giving Maureen Dowd a run for her money as biggest Hillary hating hack in the country-though always getting stiff competition from Chris Cillizza.
Chozick has been sending out tweet after tweet today with these kinds of headlines:
"If 2015 was about small events with "Everyday Americans," this summer Hillary almost exclusively heard from the 1%."
https://twitter.com/amychozick/status/772122510360018945
You see, Hillary is not allowed to raise money for her campaign to prevent Hitler 2.0. No. Chozick note has not the slightest problem with all the money that Robert Mercer is spending to elect Hitler 2.0. But Hillary must take a vow of poverty.
So with Hillary now, the media does believe in 'punishing success.' Just with Hillary. Every other politician is allowed to fund raise and gets no shade. But with her, everything she does becomes another outrage.
Boehlert points out that when the Clintons came to Washington in the 90s, they were attacked from the other side. They were 'declasse', they were hicks, they were Arkansan rubes. They were 'not like people like us'; the beautiful people of the Washington smart set.
As Boehlert went on to say, the media got revenge on Clinton by taking down his VP. Because, the Beltway was and still is mad.
They still feel that somehow the Clintons have gotten away with 'something' though they can't say what. When it comes to the Clintons this is personal for the media. This is their white whale. The dream of every one of these well heeled pundits is to be the one to take down the Clintons.
Pathetic how Chozick pretends to be populist; what does she-or Chris Cillizza or Maureen Dowd-know or care about the little people? Not a blessed thing.
I tweeted to Boehler as he brought up 2000 about how for the media back then a burning question was whether or not Al Gore attended a Buddhist temple.
Note that this was in some ways similar to Chozick's hit piece on Hillary's perfectly legitimate fundraising. Gore committed the sin of allegedly fundraising at a locale that was said to be a 'Buddhist temple.' Something about that made it much worse, though what, was never said.
Anyway I was all hyped up when I saw that Boehlert responded to my tweet:
"oh geez, I blocked out that awful press chapter re: Gore. (there were so many awful chapters!)"
https://twitter.com/EricBoehlert/status/772540869702328320
Chris Pedler then tweeted this response to me:
"@EricBoehlert @evilsax Also "no controlling legal authority," inventing the internet, earth tones, Naomi Wolf, three-button suits. Led to W."
https://twitter.com/PedlerChris/status/772556052244013056
Yes exactly. Listen, the media is fulminating over their Divine Right for a Presser. Hillary may give them one soon from what we hear. But part of me would love to see her not give them one until she wins.
Just to rub it in that she doesn't need them and they aren't the kingmakers they fancy themselves to be.
Ok. Whether you think she should give a presser or not, can we just admit that the media doesn't give a whit about policy? Chozick makes it sound like there are all these burning policy issues she wants to talk about.
She RTed this:
"Clinton gave one of her most detailed answers on Syria....at a private event in the Hamptons http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/wor"
https://twitter.com/AASchapiro/status/772494595364118528
Is it really Syrian policy Chozick wants answered? Then how do you explain this?
Norm Ornstein:
"Clinton releases comprehensive mental health plan. Here's what @jmartNYT and @amychozick write about:
https://twitter.com/NormOrnstein/status/772280127958855680
"Hillary hasn't been hiding this summer. She's been answering constant questions from the ultra wealthy, w/ @jmartNYT"
https://twitter.com/amychozick/status/772121503433383936
But you see the important questions the press used to ask Al Gore: did he really invent the Internet, why did he lie about inventing the Internet, why does he lie about 'everything big and small', why did he go to a Buddhist temple? why was he so unlikable.
Yes. We forget now but Gore was also baptized by the media as 'unlikable' just like with Hillary. The more things change...
P.S. I said two of my liberal heroes. The other one was Josh Marshall. I tweeted:
Marshall liked this observation by me:
"Most of the alleged liberal media spends their time trying to reassure conservatives they aren't liberal."
https://twitter.com/evilsax/status/772556041582247936
He responded:'
"This remains a big part of the equation the magnitude of which is difficult to overstate"
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/772557759107727360
Ok, I admit including it here is sort of gratuitous. But I do think it's an important point and am gratified that Josh Marshall of
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/
agrees. It is part of a larger problem of false equivalence and the Clinton Rules that many Democrats are discussing this weekend.
First Eric Boehlert of Media Matters. I had sent this tweet in response to a tweet he sent-kind of how Twitter works.
Boehlert talked about how the Beltway media has always been hostile to the Clintons. It goes back to the 90s. Now the media feigns populism in their Clinton attacks. They're bad people because they've been successful politicians who have made some money for themselves.
Doing well while doing good? That's fine, as long as you're not the Clintons.
Amy Chozick of the NY Times has been giving Maureen Dowd a run for her money as biggest Hillary hating hack in the country-though always getting stiff competition from Chris Cillizza.
Chozick has been sending out tweet after tweet today with these kinds of headlines:
"If 2015 was about small events with "Everyday Americans," this summer Hillary almost exclusively heard from the 1%."
https://twitter.com/amychozick/status/772122510360018945
You see, Hillary is not allowed to raise money for her campaign to prevent Hitler 2.0. No. Chozick note has not the slightest problem with all the money that Robert Mercer is spending to elect Hitler 2.0. But Hillary must take a vow of poverty.
So with Hillary now, the media does believe in 'punishing success.' Just with Hillary. Every other politician is allowed to fund raise and gets no shade. But with her, everything she does becomes another outrage.
Boehlert points out that when the Clintons came to Washington in the 90s, they were attacked from the other side. They were 'declasse', they were hicks, they were Arkansan rubes. They were 'not like people like us'; the beautiful people of the Washington smart set.
As Boehlert went on to say, the media got revenge on Clinton by taking down his VP. Because, the Beltway was and still is mad.
They still feel that somehow the Clintons have gotten away with 'something' though they can't say what. When it comes to the Clintons this is personal for the media. This is their white whale. The dream of every one of these well heeled pundits is to be the one to take down the Clintons.
Pathetic how Chozick pretends to be populist; what does she-or Chris Cillizza or Maureen Dowd-know or care about the little people? Not a blessed thing.
I tweeted to Boehler as he brought up 2000 about how for the media back then a burning question was whether or not Al Gore attended a Buddhist temple.
Note that this was in some ways similar to Chozick's hit piece on Hillary's perfectly legitimate fundraising. Gore committed the sin of allegedly fundraising at a locale that was said to be a 'Buddhist temple.' Something about that made it much worse, though what, was never said.
Anyway I was all hyped up when I saw that Boehlert responded to my tweet:
"oh geez, I blocked out that awful press chapter re: Gore. (there were so many awful chapters!)"
https://twitter.com/EricBoehlert/status/772540869702328320
Chris Pedler then tweeted this response to me:
"@EricBoehlert @evilsax Also "no controlling legal authority," inventing the internet, earth tones, Naomi Wolf, three-button suits. Led to W."
https://twitter.com/PedlerChris/status/772556052244013056
Yes exactly. Listen, the media is fulminating over their Divine Right for a Presser. Hillary may give them one soon from what we hear. But part of me would love to see her not give them one until she wins.
Just to rub it in that she doesn't need them and they aren't the kingmakers they fancy themselves to be.
Ok. Whether you think she should give a presser or not, can we just admit that the media doesn't give a whit about policy? Chozick makes it sound like there are all these burning policy issues she wants to talk about.
She RTed this:
"Clinton gave one of her most detailed answers on Syria....at a private event in the Hamptons http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/wor"
https://twitter.com/AASchapiro/status/772494595364118528
Is it really Syrian policy Chozick wants answered? Then how do you explain this?
Norm Ornstein:
"Clinton releases comprehensive mental health plan. Here's what @jmartNYT and @amychozick write about:
https://twitter.com/NormOrnstein/status/772280127958855680
"Hillary hasn't been hiding this summer. She's been answering constant questions from the ultra wealthy, w/ @jmartNYT"
https://twitter.com/amychozick/status/772121503433383936
But you see the important questions the press used to ask Al Gore: did he really invent the Internet, why did he lie about inventing the Internet, why does he lie about 'everything big and small', why did he go to a Buddhist temple? why was he so unlikable.
Yes. We forget now but Gore was also baptized by the media as 'unlikable' just like with Hillary. The more things change...
P.S. I said two of my liberal heroes. The other one was Josh Marshall. I tweeted:
Marshall liked this observation by me:
"Most of the alleged liberal media spends their time trying to reassure conservatives they aren't liberal."
https://twitter.com/evilsax/status/772556041582247936
He responded:'
"This remains a big part of the equation the magnitude of which is difficult to overstate"
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/772557759107727360
Ok, I admit including it here is sort of gratuitous. But I do think it's an important point and am gratified that Josh Marshall of
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/
agrees. It is part of a larger problem of false equivalence and the Clinton Rules that many Democrats are discussing this weekend.
No comments:
Post a Comment