Mainstream media and the 2016 Presidential primaries Part 1
In 2011, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Hillary Clinton fan, became head of the Democratic National Committee. In 2012, several months before Obama was even re-elected, Democratic pundits like Mark Shields and Bob Shrum were all over TV, saying that, if Hillary Clinton chose to run in 2016, no Democrat would even run against her. What an extraordinary claim, given that many politicians would dearly love to be President. Unless they had inside information of some kind, why would Democratic pundits, whose stock in trade is their cred, risk it that way? I began to suspect strongly that the fix was in amongst the PTB of the Democratic Party.
In January 2013, Ready for Hillary, a super PAC formed to--wait for it--draft Hillary. Its co-founders were Adam Parkhomenko, a Hillary disciple who became National Field Director of the Democratic National Committee in 2016, and is currently running to be its Vice Chair; and Allida Black. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Parkhomenko; https://www.facebook.com/allida.black In October 2013, all female Democratic Senators, including Elizabeth Warren, signed a letter urging Hillary to run for President. This letter convinced me that my suspicions were dead naught on.
I was among those who had wanted Senator Sanders to challenge Obama in 2012. He declined. In 2014, I signed, and tried my best to publicize, an online petition urging Senator Sanders to run for President, even though I believe that signing most online petitions does nothing but get me on someone's begging for $ mailing list. In April 2015, before Sanders formally announced that he was running for POTUS, I made my first donation to his Presidential campaign via his temporary website. In other words, I desperately wanted Sanders to run for President, even if he could not win. Even more desperately, I did not want Hillary Clinton to be President, as some of you clever minxes may have suspected from some of my essays.
Sanders, being a Senator much less well-known than say, Ted Kennedy or John Kerry, who was running against a former FLOTUS, one of the best-known figures in the world, good media coverage early on would have made a huge difference for Sanders. So, I followed the news very carefully. Major publications wrote introductory articles about him as though he were little more than an elderly former Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, doing nothing since but wandering the streets of Burlington in desperate need of a pressed suit and sane person's haircut, being crabby to everyone. And then those publications pretty much ignored him. After an interview during which he was treated as an oddity, broadcast media simply ignored him. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12/11/abc-world-news-tonight-has-devot...
After the annual Tyndall Report was published, some media outlets, especially their respective ombudsmen, published self-serving articles about why they had not--and still were not--covering Sanders. These included NPR and PBS. The articles were pathetically full of holes. Contradistinctively, Trump was the most covered candidate and Hillary the second most. By the time the Tyndall Report came out, a lot of damage had been done anyway: Hillary's rating were good; the Iowa Caucus was almost upon us (February 1), as was Super Tuesday (March 1). IOW, it was almost all over but the crying shouting.
I should have suspected then, but did not, that the fix was also in for Trump. Whether it was an RNC fix or an establishment media fix, I don't know. I believe the fix was in for Trump because anyone would have thought that Clinton would win more certainly against Trump than she would against any other Republican in the field. Who could lose to Trump? However, the fix could have been in for Trump because, in a Clinton vs. Trump match up, billionaires could not lose. But, in hindsight, I believe the fix was in for Trump, whatever the motive and whoever fixed it.
During the primary, my eyes were all but glued to MSNB Clinton. During the early stages of the primary MSNBC talking heads did not only cover Trump, they gushed over him as a rock star and folk hero rolled into one. Morning Foe in particular gave Trump so much air time and lionized him so effusively that it got attacked for its utter lack of objectivity, given that Mika Brzezstinksi and Joe Scarbullough were attending Trump's parties. As soon as Trump locked in the primary, though, MSNBC pivoted from gushing over him to attacking him, including Mika and Joe.
Several posters here have expressed the view that Trump got the positive coverage that he did to ensure broadcast revenues. I think the explanation is more sinister. I will explain in Part 2.
Comments
Watery meat stew, few vegetables, two gristly meats
Which is best?
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
I wish you had picked another dish.
Stew is on my menu for this week. Now, you've made it sound so awful that I don't want it, but I don't want to throw away all the ingredients, either.
I may make some, too. Just close your eyes, and snap your
heels together. I am in wild pain again. Ran out of antidepressants. It has made me lash out. I apologize to all. Back on meds, see Dr Monday (again). The tickle up my mind of orphan, widow, broken foot, disabled, elderly became Undertoad earlier today. Better, now.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
If it makes you feel any better, I didn't notice any
lashing. However, I accept your apology anyway.
Someone told me I should always accept an apology, even if I did not think I was owed one. I don't remember all the reasons, but I do remember they made sense to me at the time.
I'm sorry about the pain. Are painkillers an option for you?
Have options better then Ibu here, if that's what you mean
Off the Opiates (not advertising for home invasions)but the "sides" are too much for little relief. I shall survive. Getting out of Boot feels better, lying down off-foot is better yet.
Interesting dots connecting. Paternal grandmother died of breast cancer before I was born. (BRCA-1, BRCA-2). Maternal grandmother was the one. She did not die until I was in grad school. (and the funeral kept secret from me because grad school). I am having heart palpitations as I write this: I have no memory of ever being in her lap. I can recall the sofa pull-out my sister and I slept on, near one gas furnace, and her dosing me with Vick's Salve when I got whooping cough. Actually a very tightly-wound person. Agoraphobic from the Depression on? Never discussed. Now they are all dead.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
... if possible, move to Colorado --
we have a more enlightened view of pain relief/medication here than the rest of the nation (and much of the rest of the so-called "civilized" world) --
When Cicero had finished speaking, the people said “How well he spoke”.
When Demosthenes had finished speaking, the people said “Let us march”.
Just wow
Did Mika tell the truth by accident?
The crawl said 78% want Congress to compromise. I would not have put it that way, but I do want Congress to try like anything to find something he can agree to, rather than promising to fight him the way the Republicans did Obama. http://caucus99percent.com/content/frigate-ship-happens
That is Our Job... Wow, Indeed.
Truth from MSNBC with a buried lede.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Based upon the emails
There was obvious collusion between the Clinton campaign, not only with the DNC, but also with the MSM to promote Trump as the pied piper Republican candidate. The Clinton campaign believed that Trump was the most beatable candidate. The fact that he beat her speaks volumes as to just how shitty a campaign she ran, or even moreso, how shitty a candidate she was and continues to be. Yes, she is still running. Sigh!
BTW, we had Father Corey's recipe for beef stew last night for dinner. I am clueless as who Father Corey is or was, but the recipe for stew is wonderful.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Yes, msm and the Hillary campaign coordinated
beautifully, as some members of the media coordinated with her campaign in the early days of the 2008 primary. Some stayed with her then, like Krugman, but many segued to Obama.
Had I been faster with installments in my series about Hillary's hypocrisy in calling out Trump's followers for racism, I would have posted an essay about how Penn had begun the strategy of painting Obama as "the other" and not quite American in an internal campaign memo that The Nation somehow got its hands on after the primary ended. (I think I did get that far).
What I didn't get around to posting was that, very soon after that Penn memo--a matter of days-- a long article was published about what had supposedly shaped Obama. It smeared his Kansan grandmother and grandfather and his mother as fellow travelers, if not outright Communists, when his mom was in high school in Washington. Meanwhile his Kansan grandfather had enlisted in World War II, as had his Kansan grandmother's brother. There was also a lot of extraneous stuff about his Kenyan grandfather, whom Obama never even met. What he had to do with shaping Obama was never explained. If that article wasn't collusion with Penn, it was one heck of a huge coincidence.
Maybe I should finish that series. All signs point to Ready for Undead Hillary. She's not done yet.
... so what does it take?
... oh yeah, here it is -- an aspen stake (wood of choice), thru the chest --
When Cicero had finished speaking, the people said “How well he spoke”.
When Demosthenes had finished speaking, the people said “Let us march”.
That might be fine for ordinary zombies. But Hillary has moxie!
Have no fear, she's dead
They're just propping her up (oops) because she is the symbol of the DLC/neoliberal cabal running the Dem party. Her demise signals theirs. So, they're trying to turn her into Joan of Arc (without the bravery, principles, and legend, of course) to convince themselves that everything's all right, yes, everything's fine.
Hope you are right, but I have a funny feeling she's
still with Her.
Of course
I can be wrong, but I remember the reports of donors and insiders rumbling about her dropping out when the FBI investigation picked up steam. I don't think they'll be willing to dump more money and hope into her. The resistance to her will only deepen. They thought during this last campaign that they could overcome the public's distaste of her with - woman! teh evil trump! scary orange hair! And none of it worked. I don't think the "resistance" to trump is that strong- that is, not strong enough to give her another chance.
Hope you are right, but I have a funny feeling she's
still with Her.
Glass Ceiling
Well hey, she did finally do it.
Clinton broke the glass ceiling.
She is now the worst Presidential candidate in American history. She had a rigged primary, colluded with the media to get the candidate she wanted to face up against, had advantage after advantage after advantage on her side, and faced against Donald Trump... and she lost.
Before, the worst Presidential candidate in American history was a man, now with Clinton breaking the glass ceiling, that title belongs to a woman.
Nice essay, HW! I'm one of those in the 'revenue' camp,
I suppose.
True, DT got gobs of coverage from the time of his announcement (until 'the speech'), but from what I saw and heard, the Cable News coverage was almost exclusively derisive and mocking-. He wasn't treated as a 'serious' candidate--maybe, an oddity, at best.
IMO, the point of turnaround (regarding MSM coverage) was Mitt Romney's speech on March 3, 2016.
Per Wikipedia,
[Re-paragraphed for emphasis.]
Remember, a corporatist [No Labels] Independent candidate from Romney's state, Evan McMullen, was even dredged up to run against DT, in the hopes of denying him a win in Utah. See below.
McMullin, a Morman, entered the presidential race in August as an alternative for Republicans unhappy with Trump.
Here's a link to the transcript of Romney's speech.(NYT archives). You might notice, that he two biggest points of contention were DT's anti-free trade stance, and his [stated] reluctance to slash so-called 'entitlements.'
Regarding Cable News and satellite radio coverage--the change in tone was immediate, IMO. And 24/7.
Because of this, I truly believe that 'helping' DT was totally unintentional [on the part of the corporatist MSM].
OTOH, it's very possible that the Dem Party considered DT to be the weakest candidate, therefore, sought to help him win the Republican nomination. Heck, some of FSC's surrogates said as much.
Anyhoo, not sure we'll ever really know; in any event, just my 2 cents.
Mollie
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went."--Will Rogers
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Revenue
The revenue opportunities did not change as Trump locked up the nomination. The tone of the coverage did.
Yep. That is part of what I hope to convince people of
in Part 2.
Romney's 3/3 speech was too late to hurt Trump in the primary.
Thank you for the kind words about my essay. I hope Part 2 will make a good case that revenues do not drive networks like MSNBC and FuturePassed makes one of the points I hope to make in Part 2.
On the speech issue, we disagree, but it's interpretation.
I watched Morning Joe every day during the primary to monitor MSNBC's coverage of Clinton vs. Sanders. However, I could not avoid the Trump gush from Joe and Mika. They also had him on so often, whether in person or by phone. Because Joe and Mika were the worst of the TV Trump gushers (Fox perhaps excepted, but I never watch Fox), their pivot from Trump gushing to Trump bashing was also very noticeable. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/12/joe-and-mika-defend-themselves-ag... (Trump Tower); http://www.gq.com/story/joe-scarborough-has-big-dreams-trump-musical ; http://crooksandliars.com/2017/01/joe-and-mika-mar-lago-party-joe-gets
Trump had had momentum on his side with primary voters almost from the off, even though super delegates may not have declared for him. Iowa was February 1; New Hampshire was February 9. Cruz had a slim win of under three points in Iowa; but, in NH, Trump got twice as many votes as the #2 Republican hopeful (Kasich). The New Hampshire primary was seen as an anti-establishment result; and Trump was unmistakeably the anti-establishment candidate on the Republican side, knocking Christie and Fiorina out of the race. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Republican_primary,_2016
Not only did Trump win big in NH, given the size of the Republican field on Feb. 9, but Republican voters were turning out in record numbers to vote for him. http://www.npr.org/2016/02/26/468152317/will-high-tide-of-primary-voter-... Polls were predicting big wins for Trump on Super Tuesday. Jeb!, who most people had assumed would be the Republican nominee, dropped out February 20, before even Super Tuesday, after having spend 150 million bucks in "hard" money alone. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/jeb-bush-dropping-out-set... (Trump had that day won the
AdelsonNevada Republican primary.) By the time Jeb! had to drop out on February 20, it was fairly obvious that Trump was going to be the nominee.Super Tuesday was March 1; and, as predicted, Trump indeed won big, emerging 20 points ahead of everyone else in the Republican field (and Hillary 13 points ahead of Sanders). Trump's Super Tuesday victory dwarfed that of Obama's in 2008, where some said Hillary had won big, while Tim Russert declared a tie, but Obama claimed a delegate lead (probably accurately, if he counted super delegates). http://www.politico.com/story/2008/02/obama-claims-delegate-lead-008358
I think the plan all along was for media to support the heck out of Trump until it became clear that he was going to be the nominee, then start dumping on him. By the night of March 1, 2016, for all practical purposes, both contests were all over but the shouting, but most certainly the Republican contest was over. (Some diehard Sanders supporters still hoped that Sanders had a "path" to victory, but I didn't care. I just kept donating.) Romney made his speech dumping on Trump on March 3. By March 3, Romney's speech was either anti-climatic or part of the dumping plan. I don't think the speech of the Republican two-time loser spoke more loudly than Jeb!'s leaving the race, or the Super Tuesday results, or the large crowds Trump had begun pulling in to his rallies by then, or the record-breaking Republican turn out at the polls, etc.
Since Trump did already have a lock on the nom by the night of March 1, for all practical purposes, I do find the timing of Romney's speech dumping on Trump very odd. As the the Party's former Presidential front runner, Romney, as of March 3 was the titular head of the Republican Party, at least until Trump officially got the nom. If Romney was really so opposed to Trump, why did Romney not make his (Romney's) supposedly strong anti-Trump feelings known while another Republican may still have had a chance to beat out Trump for the Republican nom? By March 3, Romney's speech could not hurt Trump in the primary; Romney's speech could only help Hillary in the general.
For billionaires, green usually trumps both red and blue, no pun intended. Bain Capital, from which Romney has been getting his post-retirement income, and its affiliates, had been donating to Hillary since at least the fall of 2015, right along with Goldman Sachs; and Bain had even scheduled a fundraiser for her in February (which she postponed). http://eaglerising.com/29299/mitt-romneys-bain-capital-sends-its-money-t... ; http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2015/11/17/bain-capital-s-2016-do... ; http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2015/11/17/bain-capital-s-2016-do...
Romney's tack was the direct opposite of other Republican party heads, who wait until the nominee is obvious, then endorse him, even if they hate him (as Nancy Reagan supposedly hated McCain).
If I take Romney's remarks about Trump at face value, I am not sure how I would interpret Romney's silence about Trump until after Super Tuesday, when Trump clearly had a lock on the nom. It's especially suspicious since Massachusetts, where Romney was Governor and therefore theoretically might have swung the state's Republicans away from Trump, was among the states that voted on Super Tuesday. Yet, Romney stayed silent until Trump had nailed it down. So, forgive me for being cynical about what Romney might actually have been up to with that March 3 speech. And, Romney did speak out against Trump in October, another gift to Hillary.
In any event, I think the lock on the nom for all practical purposes was the pivot point in media coverage, from gush to dump. Trump was locking down the nom somewhere between February 20 and the night March 1, although forecasts were even earlier. I understand that you see Romney's speech a driving msm primary coverage of Trump. That's wonderful, even though I see that speech as, if anything, a gift to Hillary in the general. As they say, that's what makes a horse race (whatever that means). And, in the end, Trump made a ass of Romney as Mitt salivated at the possibility of becoming Trump's SOS.
Hey, HW--thanks for your detailed and
well-presented arguments.
Basically, I agree with what you've stated about the way the Republican primary race transpired. However, I believe that the delay in 'the Establishment Republicans' public repudiation of DT was the result of a combination of the media and political elites living in a bubble, and downright arrogance. IOW, they simply were slow to take DT's 'movement' (said tongue-in-check) seriously; hence, the delay in action.
I've heard several program hosts on XM Radio defend giving DT a lot of air time due to the spike in ratings. They reminded their audience that news today is not a public service--it is a business. Same was said by some cable news hosts.
Remember, there were various attempts to derail his nomination, including after the Republican convention. The Republican Establishment literally didn't give up until late October, trying to derail his nomination. Even then, some Repub Establishment activists were hoping that they could persuade committed, or pledged delegates to renege on their position, and vote for FSC. (Which backfired, when she lost more delegates than DT.) BTW, I don't know how much these efforts were covered on the shows that you've mentioned, but they were reported on pretty heavily by the mainstream news (print) media, and on a couple of XM Radio political programs that I listen to daily.
Anyhoo, you're probably right, that it's a matter of interpretation. I left the Dem Party in 2004 due to overall corruption, and the way that the MSM joined with Dem Party Elites to screw over Governor Dean. My own political views fall along the lines of those of Hedges and Street. So, I pretty much detest both parties!
Anyhoo, I very much look forward to reading Part 2--I am always open to new information and ideas.
Mollie
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went."--Will Rogers
[my boldface and re-paragraphing]
Taro
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
The air time is one thing. The gushing is another.
So is pivoting from gushing to bashing.
As far as the establishment being slow to take him seriously, these people are pros, with advisors and with access to more polls, analysis, etc. than we ever hear about; and Romney is certainly a political pro. What makes no sense to me whatever, unless you are trying to help Hillary, is the pyrrhic gesture of bashing Trump for the very first time right after Trump locked the nomination.
HW, I don't dispute that
some political talking heads gushed--you've mentioned Joe & Mika--but, I don't watch them, or any programs that have a blatant partisan agenda, so their antics and biases don't serve as a point of reference for me. Mostly, when I listen to XM radio, I tune into the so-called news segments, or the programs that are supposedly headed by a journalist(s)--for what that's worth. (not a whole lot!)
BTW, I admit that Joe and Mika are particularly hard to swallow--they're both affiliated with 'No Labels,' which was founded by
hackspolitical strategists from both the Bush and Clinton camps. Having said that, I'd have to agree that it wouldn't be that farfetched that those two would want to throw the election to either Jeb or FSC. Not coincidentally, the initial meeting of the money bags who founded 'No Labels' was in the backyard of the Bush family--Houston.I have a couple of other thoughts that I'd like to add, but I'll wait until you post Part 2, since it's late, and I've got to work on scanning documents for an insurance claim.
Hey, once I address them, I'll move on. I have an honest difference of opinion on some aspects of this topic, but I don't want to harangue you, or anyone else.
Mollie
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went."--Will Rogers
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
I see civil exchanges as discussing, not haranguing.
But, I respect your view of it.
@HenryAWallace
How about: if it got out to the public (don't recall this being publicized, but I miss a lot, lol,) that the corporatists (especially ole Robo-Money!) were bashing Trump specifically for his purported populist ideas and the corporate media (which nobody informed had trusted since long before that point) bashed Trump while pushing the rightfully-detested Hazardous Hillary The Mad Bomber as
The Chosen Sitting-Pee-er of Trickle-DownIt's Her Turn, Dammit!, thereby perhaps getting voters out for Trump so that he could be The Bad Guy enacting their agenda and from whom the Clintons could ultimately rescue the thought-to-be-by-then-clamouring-to-be-Withered populace?Generally, anything the corporatists don't like is something actively beneficial or involving the prevention of harm to the public, which seems to encompass RMoney-mine's speechified (that last didn't go red - is it seriously a real word?) complaint regarding Trump.
Reverse psychology is hardly new, probably even for TPTB, who in both cases had remarkably similar foot-soldiers perfect for their purposes in the back-up VP position for any selections who might suffer sudden death or other failure. In fact, they seem to have suitable-for-them back-ups all the way down, seemingly pretty much selected before the election, if you looked at the prospective Speakers on both sides, weren't they?
Dunno about the ones that follow, but the first 7 would probably cover most extingencies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession
Obviously, I dunno, but did kinda wonder...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
I disagree
The revenue argument is undermined by the fact that they showed his rambling 40 minute speeches uninterrupted. That was the glaring signal that the fix was in. Not a single commercial. Not a single comment from the cackling hens. Just live streaming on multiple stations. They were too clever by half.
I would also disagree about the coverage during the primary being derisive. Yes, they constantly stated that he didn't have a chance, but they could never argue who did have a chance. And true to the leaked emails, the other candidates who got the most coverage were the "outsiders" Cruz and Carson. The fix was clearly in.
Hi, oretes--guess we'll have to 'agree, to disagree.'
Seriously, I don't quite follow your assertion that the fix was in because they covered DT's speeches. My main source of news is satellite (XM) radio, and they covered the speeches/rallie of all three of the main candidates on POTUS Channel. It is true that Bernie's were covered less, after it became evident that FSC had locked up the Dem Party electoral vote (according to AP).
(I listen to some Cable News, but not a whole lot.)
Yes, DT's speeches have always been rambling and unscripted. That was probably one of the reasons for his higher viewer ratings--no one ever knew what to expect from him. Supposedly, in the news business, that's part of what makes for good viewer ratings. (their measure, not mine)
As far as Carson and Cruz getting a good bit of coverage, my Family watched all the Presidential debates, including the Republican debates. IIRC, Cruz and Carson were the other two 'most popular' Republican candidates--as far as the grass roots activists were concerned. There's no argument that it was the year of the outsider, including for the Repubs. My recollection is that Cruz was DT's primary contender; and, for a brief period, Carson vied for second place.
It seemed (to me) that the Repub Base outright rejected the idea of an Establishment Repub, like Bush or Kasich, very early on. I think a lot of it had to do with those candidates' professed plans/desire to slash so-called 'entitlements.' Bear in mind, John Kasich may be mild mannered, but he is one of the scariest, ultra-fiscal hawks out there. He was Newt's right-hand man in negotiating some of WJC's most toxic budget cuts. And he was in your face (so to speak) in Debates, and on the campaign trail, that he planned to cut entitlements in order to 'save' them. That's why the Establishment Repubs tried so hard to help him take the nomination, after Bush finally dropped out.
Of course, that's just my take, and various actors probably had different motives. At any rate, I'm glad that the primary cycle and election is finally behind us. It seemed to go on for years . . .
Mollie
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went."--Will Rogers
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
I was talking expressly about cable tv news
I watched it fairly religiously during the entire campaign because it was so outrageously biased. Re the trump speeches- I have never seen cable news show non-stop feed of any event during prime time other than a major presidential or similar address. No other candidate was given the uninterrupted treatment trump was given. In a field of 20 candidates (both parties) at the early stages, it is particularly puzzling why only one would be treated in such a manner. I would propose that it was because- as the leaked emails show- the insiders decided to elevate trump for a clinton victory. The tone of the treatment re trump changed with the republican convention. The script that all of the TV news media (and a good chunk of websites as well) was so harmonized it was creepy. The exact same words were uttered over and over, in multiple venues. From there, it was pretty much what we continue to experience- a constant barrage of noise spinning every move, every utterance trump makes.
We can, of course, agree to disagree. My perception is fueled by my ingestion of cable tv news during this campaign, from listening to morning joke as I got ready for work, to watching the mindless talking heads during prime time. It was on the level of watching those morons on the view. It was that bad. But also very educational.
We seem to have seen it very similarly.
That doesn't mean we're both right--we could both be wrong. But I think it means we're not way out in left field.
I agree, FP, that revenue didn't necessarily dry up
when the MSM's tone changed. I was trying to convey that I believe that their (MSM) intent for giving him so much coverage (initially), was to tap the revenue that his ratings brought them--not to actually elevate him as a candidate.
Mollie
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went."--Will Rogers
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Yes please Hillary, run for President!
say the Senate women.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/10/in-secret-letter-senate-dem...
None of them, it would seem, had any institutional memory of Clinton's actual campaign, nor of her record as Secretary of State or as Senator, I gather. They were going to run America's biggest cheerleader for the Welfare Bill and the Crime Bill, the woman who screwed up health insurance (the first time), Haiti, Honduras, Libya, Syria, and the Ukraine, as a friend of the people. Yep! All the Senate women were going to sell America's biggest architect of "free trade agreements" to the victims of its job losses, because she's a woman y'know.
They all sat on this for three years, and then Doug Henwood published "My Turn," and by that time they had committed, and ignored Henwood's excellent summary of Clinton's elitist mediocrity, moneygrubbing narcissism, and right-wing Methodist core belief system.
Barbara Boxer organized the letter apparently. You'd think that at some point, even perhaps after the publication of Henwood's book, a light would have gone on in Boxer's head, and she would have decided to run for President herself. But no! There they were, America's Democrats, completely oblivious to how bad they looked, all except Bernie Sanders, running on no endorsements and no media coverage.
They're not going to listen to us mere plebes, or to anyone else for that matter. The wagons are circled and the groupthink is firmly in place.
“When there's no fight over programme, the election becomes a casting exercise. Trump's win is the unstoppable consequence of this situation.” - Jean-Luc Melanchon
... "plebes ..."
... didn't you mean to say "the hoi and the polloi" ?
When Cicero had finished speaking, the people said “How well he spoke”.
When Demosthenes had finished speaking, the people said “Let us march”.
My take: The Clinton campaign organized the letter,
just as they organized everything else during the 8 years they were waiting to run (openly) again. They handed the letter off to Boxer so she could pretend it was her idea because they knew she'd keep her mouth shut.
The women who signed the letter were not fooled. They all know that Boxer's daughter is married to Hillary's brother. Billary have certainly benefited that Boxer-Clinton couple over the years, with, no doubt, more to come if Hillary became President. What mom does not want her daughter to prosper even more than she has already prospered? Not to mention the Boxer-Clinton grandbabies!
Meanwhile, don't you love how the media and all of America knows the contents of a "secret" letter? Much as we knew about that "secret" meeting between Obama and Hillary at Difi's house in 2008. When we all know about a political "secret," something smells really bad. I think a great deal of the point of that "secret" letter was to put Warren on the spot to sign it in order to squelch the Warren for POTUS talk.
My further take: it was a done deal in 2008 that Hillary was to be the 2016 nominee, unless Obama, Reid, et al. wanted her to campaign for McCain and take her beloved of Democrats+ husband and her angry PUMAs with her. The Clinton campaign and she had introduced all that with "Senator McCain and I are ready for that 3 a.m. phone call. Senator Obama is not."
And that is my take.
Lily Tomlin
The sad thing is, she's left a trail of stank behind her
so broad and to deep that it will be twenty to a hundred times harder for any other woman to run for President for, probably, the next fifty years.
If we even have that long as a nation, or as a species.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
... it was a disgusting campaign --
When Cicero had finished speaking, the people said “How well he spoke”.
When Demosthenes had finished speaking, the people said “Let us march”.
All of her campaigns have been disgusting.
Her 2008 primary campaign (including those acting on her behalf) against Obama--racism, birtherism, lies about her own experiences, attacking his supporters as sexist "Obama boys."
Her primary campaign (incl. those acting on her behalf) against Sanders--lies about her own experience, false implications that Sanders is racist or indifferent, falsehoods about that photo from, for God's sake, Sanders college days not being him, highly misleading accusation about Sanders vote for the CMFA that her husband tried six ways to Sunday to get passed, comments about Sanders' religion or lack thereof, lies about dual Israeli citizenship, attacking his supporters as sexist Bernie Bros. Not to mention all the funny stuff during the primary that was not funny. While Sanders is not perfect, he is certainly one of the most decent politicians in Washington, D.C.
Her general campaign against Trump-almost 100% ad hom and hypocritically attacking his supporters as espousing the "basket of deplorables" that she and her campaigns own, including, of course, sexism. They deserved to be up against each other, but the country didn't deserve it.
She is disgraceful. If I were still a Democrat, I'd be furious to be in the same party. Then again, it's no coincidence that I Demexited this summer. So, I guess I really did not want to be associated with that mess.
Surrogates
Having Clinton surrogates attack everyone was just disgusting.
Think one of the more disgusting ones was them saying how millenial women were too stupid to make their own political decisions and instead were driven by their sexual impulses, hence the young women flocking to Bernie's side cause "that is where all the boys were"....
Truly deplorable.
And from a feminism expert, too.
I didn't recall that Steinem's comment was limited to millennial women.
Even more ironic than the nation's former #1 diplomat jovially threatening a special place in hell for women who don't vote for other women. Funny, I don't remember her saying that about Sarah Palin, though. So, it had nothing to do with supporting women and everything to do with supporting Hillary.
Two iconic women who were inspirations to women at one point both spat on their own reputations and legacies to make anti-female remarks in Hillary's service--but, according to Hillary, only Trump's supporters are in her basket of deplorables for sexism. Hillary, thy name is hypocrisy, divisiveness, bigot, the ugliest version of identity politics, etc. http://caucus99percent.com/content/hillary-thy-name-ispart-seven Too bad I didn't write that faster. After seven parts, I was just about to get to her racist, dishonest 2008 primary campaign.
Even though I cannot abide President Not Hillary, I have no regrets. A Democrat like Hillary is more dangerous long-term to the 99% than a Republican such as Presdient Not Hillary, wretched though he is.
If I recall
If I recall, Steinem was asked why Clinton, who was supposed to be doing so well with women, was failing with millenial women.
I could be wrong, been a while since I heard the actual questino.
Ms. Steinem said -
Gloria Steinem appears to have offended a large group of Bernie Sanders supporters by suggesting that his young female supporters are only backing the senator because of “boys”
The feminist writer and activist made the comments on Bill Maher’s show on Friday. Steinem suggested young women preferred Sanders to Hillary Clinton because:
Many young female Sanders supporters were unhappy with this characterization.
“Gloria Steinem’s statement was the worst kind of sweeping generalization I’ve heard in years about women my age,” said Moumita Ahmed, 25. She has been campaigning for Sanders as one of the leaders of the Millenials for Bernie movement.
“I was hurt because I consider her to be an icon of the feminist movement,” she continued. “I identify as a feminist. I’m not sure how she could admit us young women are graduating with more debt and earning less money, then say young women are supporting Bernie Sanders to impress all the boys.”
HUH? Women lose power as they age?
Is she saying that the only power women have in is their own youth? Which is when they tend to be most physically attractive to men (not necessarily men who know them and love them for who they are, rather than for what they look like, but men in general).
That's even more sexist than "where the boys are."
Was Steinem more powerful as a young reporter, or as founder of Ms Magazine and feminism guru?
Was Hillary more powerful as a self-important Yale Law School student, ogling Bubba in the library (eyeeing each other in the library is her version of how they met), or as Secretary of State and head of the Democratic Party?
Was Elizabeth Warren more powerful as a struggling young mom, or as Senator from Massachusetts and what passes for a liberal icon these days?
Were these women more powerful when they were younger? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_CEOs_of_Fortune_500_companies
Was Tyra Banks more powerful as a young model, or as a media mogul?
Wowza! Who knew what was going on in that head of Ms. Steinem's all these years women and men were looking up to her as one of the liberators?
I believed you. I just hadn't remembered.
I guess they want to be "where the boys are" just stuck in my head to the exclusion of the rest.
Exactly. I believe that the constant, trumped up cries of
misogyny and sexism probably hurt ordinary women looking for jobs, where discrimination is actionable.
If a male or a female pointed out Hillary has bad taste, that was sexist. If a male or female pointed out that Hillary has bad judgment, that were sexist. If a male or female pointed out that Hillary lies, that was sexist. It was frigate unreal, literally and figuratively.