giving hillary the old one-two


Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd. Both sounding more vicious than any political commentary I’ve ever heard outside of Rush Limbaugh.

Rich sounds like he’s channeling Dowd.

What’s next? Despite Mrs. Clinton’s valedictory tone at Thursday’s debate, there remains the fear in some quarters that whether through sleights of hand involving superdelegates or bogus delegates from Michigan or Florida, the Clintons might yet game or even steal the nomination. I’m starting to wonder. An operation that has waged political war as incompetently as the Bush administration waged war in Iraq is unlikely to suddenly become smart enough to pull off that duplicitous a “victory.”

Dowd hammers away that Hillary has gender-envy issues.

Hillary was so busy trying to prove she could be one of the boys — getting on the Armed Services Committee, voting to let W. go to war in Iraq, strong-arming supporters and donors, and trying to out-macho Obama — that she only belatedly realized that many Democratic and independent voters, especially women, were eager to move from hard-power locker-room tactics to a soft-power sewing circle approach.

Both mention this horrible $1200 spent on Dunkin’ Donuts. Did campaign workers actually EAT donuts? WHAT a despicable waste. Good thing Hillary will never be president. People might eat donuts in the White House.


Hillaryland spent like a hedge fund manager in a flat-screen TV store. Her campaign attempted to show omnipotence by lavishing a fortune on the take-no-prisoners strategists Howard Wolfson and Mark Penn, and on having the best of everything from the set decoration at events to Four Seasons rooms. In January alone, they spent $11,000 on pizza, $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts and $95,384 at a Des Moines Hy-Vee grocery store for get-out-the-vote sandwich platters.

Hell hath no fury like an editorial board scorned.

I said a while back that the New York Times endorsement of Hillary Clinton was intended to give that newspaper’s columnists license, and their campaign reporters cover, to freely and viciously attack the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. What I’ve come to learn since making that statement is that newspaper’s publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., overruled the Times’ editorial board on the endorsement of Hillary. The paper’s writers and editors choice for the coveted endorsement was Barack Obama and their work since the endorsement has been unambiguously pro-Obama.

I’m beyond caring at this point about what really goes on in newsrooms as it applies to fairness and objectivity. I’m sure I’m not alone in that regard. It’s what is ending up in headlines, hard news stories, and television reporting and anchoring, and commentary, in the actual content that is presented to the public… this is what so many (too few?) are outraged about. I went to colluge, peeple. I’ve studied the effects of the media’s choices in terms of presentation and slant on how the news or the story is perceived by the public… and I’m sure many others here have as well. It’s on every good poli-sci professor’s syllabus.

People have also been exposed to the many well documented and and researched media critiques in the form of books by those pointing out biases in the mainstream press. Thanks to, in the beginning of this sort of coverage of the news media, voices such as Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti, Ralph Nader, FAIR, etc. we have been provided with an education into the effect of perspective and biases in the media on how stories are presented and received as well as how all of that can effect world events.


No Responses Yet to “giving hillary the old one-two”

  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: